Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Derwent Valley Water Board Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. GALLAGHER).

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Gallagher, widow of Private J. W. Gallagher, No. 12,308, East Lancashire Regiment; if he is aware that previous to her marriage with Gallagher she was the widow of a soldier named Corporal Brighty, who was killed in the War; whether she lost her pension on her remarriage, and if he will state the reason why she has been refused a pension now on account of the death of Gallagher, who was severely wounded and permanently disabled by machine-gun fire; if he can say how many children she has dependent upon her; and what provision, if any, he proposes to make for her in order that she need not apply for poor law relief?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The late Private Gallagher was discharged on 18th January, 1918, as a result of a gun-shot wound of the abdomen received on 24th April, 1917. He married on the 22nd September, 1917, and died from nephritis and general
dropsy on the 14th August, 1919. Private Gallagher had been in receipt of a pension for the gun-shot wound, but when last examined on the 27th November, 1918, the medical board found the scar to be superficial and non-adherent, and assessed disablement at nil. As regards his fatal illness, the medical advisers of the Ministry have decided, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, that the disease must be regarded as having arisen after discharge, and to be in no way connected with his military service. This Department has, therefore, no authority to award a pension. Mrs. Gallagher has, however, appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against this decision, and in view of her circumstances my right hon. Friend is asking the tribunal to give early consideration to the case. Mrs. Gallagher has, I understand, one child dependent on her.

Colonel WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this woman is the widow of a soldier who is lying in a soldier's grave in France, and that she is now dependent upon charity for her support? Can he tell me something about that?

Major TRYON: The position is this: The decision of the House of Commons took the question of attributability entirely out of the hands of the Ministry and set up a separate tribunal, over which the Ministry have no power whatever, to deal with these cases. This case is now being decided by a tribunal set up by the full authority of the House of Commons, and is taken by the authority of the House of Commons, away from the Ministry. Under the circumstances, I do not think I can make any further comment.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which I have received, and also to the urgency of the case of this woman, I will raise this question on the motion for adjournment to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CONSTABULARY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many men have been attested for the
Royal Irish Constabulary between 1st January, 1920, and 31st May, 1920; how many men have resigned, been dismissed or discharged without gratuity during the same period; and how many have retired on pension or been discharged on gratuity during the same period?

Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: 7.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of resignations from the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police from the 15th April to the 15th June, 1919 and 1920, respectively?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The figures asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) are as follow:—


Number of men attested for Royal Irish Constabulary between 1st January and 31st May, 1920
1,504


Number who resigned during same period
334


Number who were dismissed or discharged without gratuity during same period
40


Number who have retired on pension or have been discharged on gratuity during same period
187


The figures asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) are as follows:—


Resignations of Dublin Metropolitan Police in period 15th April to 15th June, 1919
1


Resignations corresponding period in 1920
41


The resignation in 1919 and 8 of the resignations in 1920 were retirements on pension.
Royal Irish Constabulary statistics are not available for the period commencing 15th April, but the following figures for the period commencing 1st April and ending 1st June are given:—


Number of resignations in Royal Irish Constabulary 1st April, 1919, to 1st June, 1919
17


Number for corresponding period in 1920
235


These two police forces have served gallantly during a most difficult and trying time, and I feel sure the House will agree they command our admiration and
support. The Government is determined to give every support to these officers in the discharge of their duties.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how soon the ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary will receive increases in their pensions?

Mr. HENRY: Increases of pension for which any ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary may be eligible under the scheme proposed in the case of pre-War State pensioners generally cannot be granted until the necessary legislation has been obtained, but it is hoped that the Bill which has now been drafted for this purpose will be introduced at a very early date. As regards ex-members of the force who retired on or after the 1st April, 1919, and whose pensions admit of revision under the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions (Interim) Order, 1920, the necessary steps to effect revision are being taken in all such cases, and there will be no avoidable delay in notifying pensioners of the revised awards, and in making payments accordingly.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the first class to which the right hon. Gentleman referred be dealt with in the British Bill, or will there be a special Bill for Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: I think it will be dealt with in the general Bill.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best, seeing that this matter is really very urgent, to get the Bill brought in, and passed as soon as possible?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly. I take a personal interest in it.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will it cover pensioners under the 1883 Act?

Mr. HENRY: I think so.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 9.
asked the ChiefSecretary for Ireland the number of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have applied to transfer from Munster counties into other parts of Ireland during the last year, and who have been refused, in spite of their having completed the regulation period of five years' service in Munster?

Mr. HENRY: The carrying out of this regulation is dependent on the exigencies of the service, and in existing conditions it cannot be carried out in many instances, the number of which cannot be ascertained without much trouble and loss of valuable time.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In the ordinary course are men being transferred, where possible, at the end of five years, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the men at being kept in this very disorderly district, and that they feel that they are being treated as if they were on active service and were being left indefinitely in the front line?

Mr. HENRY: Unfortunately the reason they are kept there is that the district is disorderly.

Colonel ASHLEY: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the officers and men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police are not eligible for the medal granted for valour and bravery which is awarded in suitable cases to the officers and men of the Royal Irish Contabulary; and what medal can be given to members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police?

Mr. HENRY: Members of both the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police are eligible for the King's Police Medal. In addition, members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are eligible for the Constabulary Medal which is awarded for pre-eminent valour and bravery. The case of the Dublin Metropolitan Police has been under consideration, and it has been decided that members of that force should have an equal opportunity of earning recognition of special courageous action. An announcement on the subject will be made very shortly.

RIFLES (SEIZURE).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has yet received recent official information to the effect that Sinn Fein volunteers have seized 20 rifles at the house of Mr. Watson, Beech Park, near Lurgan; whether the police are making inquiries; and whether proceedings are to be instituted against this gentleman for the possession of these arms?

Mr. HENRY: I have nothing to add to the reply given by me to the previous
question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend on this subject on Thursday last.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether inquiries are being made—which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to tell me last Thursday—and, if not, whether they will be made; and whether the law as regards possessing firearms is going to be applied impartially in Ireland or not?

Mr. MOLES: May I ask whether, if the statements contained in this question be true, the right hon. Gentleman will have the Sinn Feiners prosecuted, firstly, for robbery with violence, secondly, for having illegal firearms in their possession; and may I ask, lastly, whether my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has not discovered a gigantic mare's nest?

Mr. HENRY: I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that I have made inquiries and can find no evidence to support the statement made. As regards the other part of the question, all these cases in which arms are found in houses are submitted to me, and I invariably, without regard to politics or religion or personal feeling, have directed prosecutions—in many cases against Unionists.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there no truth at all in the Press statements about the raid on this house by Sinn Feiners, or the seizure of arms?

Mr. HENRY: The question I was asked, and which I dealt with, was as to the possibility of a prosecution against the gentleman referred to. I have already informed my hon. and gallant Friend that I can find no evidence to sustain a charge.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case was included in the official list of outrages published by Dublin Castle? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Do not you want to hear the truth? Obviously not.

HEALTH COUNCIL.

Major O'NEILL: 6.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been made by the Irish Health Council; and whether they have yet made any Report as to the improvement of health conditions in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the Public Health Council on the Public Health and Medical Services in Ireland, which was presented to the House on the 14th instant.

ATTACK ON EX-SOLDIER.

Colonel ASHLEY: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any of the assailants of the ex-soldier who was dragged out of bed at Fenit, County Kerry, on 10th June, and then tarred and feathered, have been arrested; and can he state what was the cause of the crime?

Mr. HENRY: The cause of the outrage so far as can be ascertained was that Sheehy had been in the Army, and was in the habit of associating with police. No arrests have been made as Sheehy did not know any of the party who attacked him.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What evidence has the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that statement?

Mr. HENRY: Sad experience!

Mr. ARCHDALE: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if there is any co-ordination between the military and police in Ireland as to prevention of outrages?

Mr. HENRY: The answer is in the affirmative. The co-ordination is steadily improving.

Colonel ASHLEY: 23.
asked the Attorney-General for Ireland what is the maximum penalty which can be inflicted for shooting at the police in Ireland; and whether his attention has been called to the sentence on Patrick Nee, on 14th June, at Galway, to three months' imprisonment on a charge of shooting at the police by night at Maam Cross?

Mr. HENRY: The maximum penalty if the police were fired at with intent to murder would be penal servitude for life. This prisoner was tried before two resident magistrates, and obviously they came to the conclusion that there was no intent.

DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. ARCHDALE: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the various resident magistrates in Ireland have been informed of the respective Divisional Commissioners who are in supreme control; and, if not, who is supposed to act in any emergency?

Mr. HENRY: The resident magistrates are, in respect of administrative matters, under the control of the Lord Lieutenant, and as they have no executive duties connected with the Royal Irish Constabulary, they have not been officially notified of the appointment of Divisional Commissioners. The Divisional Commissioners have no control over the resident magistrates, and they are themselves magistrates for the counties under their charge, though they do not exercise judicial functions. The Divisional Commissioners may, therefore, act as magistrates in any emergency, except in regard to judicial matters.

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now say when there is likely to be a Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill; whether he is aware of the discontent among the teachers at the Government's delay in proceeding with the Bill; and whether, in the event of the Bill not receiving a Second Reading before the Recess, the Government is prepared to meet the financial claims of the teachers, who, in many instances, are reduced to serious monetary conditions by reason of this delay?

Mr. HENRY: Discussions upon the Bill are still proceeding with parties interested in Ireland, and I am not at the moment in a position to make any further statement on the subject. The question of the remuneration of teachers is being dealt with on a provisional basis apart from the Bill, and a definite announcement of substantial concession has already been made.

Mr. M`GUFFIN: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation of primary and secondary teachers from Ireland who are interested in this matter, as it is causing great discontent?

Sir P. MAGNUS: Does not the delay in introducing the Bill tend to increase the feeling of unrest in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: I am quite prepared to receive a deputation; but I would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. McGuffin) that the more appropriate course would be to approach the Chief Secretary. With respect to the question put by the hon. Member (Sir P. Magnus), the Prime Minister will make a statement later.

EX-SERVICE MEN'S OFFER.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the condition of affairs in Ireland, and particularly from the military point of view, the Government are prepared to accept the assistance of loyal volunteers to aid in the restoration of law and order in Ireland; and whether in this connection the Government has received an offer from the Ulster Ex-Service Men's Association to place at its disposal 3,000 trained officers and men who, in view of their special knowledge of the country and their loyalty to the Crown, would be of signal service at the present time in dealing with the disloyal forces in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: The offer referred to by the hon. Member has been received, and is being carefully considered by the Government.

TEACHERS (PAY AND PENSIONS).

Mr. MOLES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters in Secondary Schools in Ireland, which states that only 12 such teachers are in receipt of £300 per annum; that 212 such teachers receive salaries under £200; that over 260 receive salaries under £160; that 150 have salaries under £120; that the teaching profession in Ireland is being denuded of most of its best men; and whether, in view of the grave menace which this causes to Irish educational interests, he will see that immediate steps are taken to put secondary teachers in Ireland on an equivalent financial position to that of such teachers in England and Scotland?

Mr. LYNN: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen a statement issued by the Ulster Headmasters' Association complaining of the delay in dealing with secondary education in Ireland; whether he is aware that, owing to the action of the Government in not proceeding with the Irish Education Bill, secondary teachers are heavily penalised; and whether he is in a position to say when Irish secondary teachers will receive similar treatment to that accorded secondary teachers in Great Britain?

Mr. DONALD: 64.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn
to a resolution passed by Irish school teachers protesting against the continued withholding of the grants admittedly owing to Irish education; and, seeing that no provision has been made in the Education Estimates of the current year, will the Government bring in a supplementary estimate in order to place Irish teachers in a position equal to that conferred upon the teachers of Great Britain under the Education Acts of 1918?

Mr. DONALD: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when the Government propose to deal with the question of education in Ireland; whether he is aware that Irish teachers, in order to enjoy their own advantages, are leaving Ireland for this country owing to their benefits being withheld in Ireland; and whether he is aware that over 100,000 children are without school accommodation in Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am well aware of the unsatisfactory salaries paid to Irish teachers, but the House knows that the difference in this respect between Ireland and Great Britain is that in Great Britain the local authorities bear a large part of the burden. It is for that reason the Government have introduced the Irish Education Bill, which will be proceeded with as soon as time can be found for it in this House.

Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the claim made by these teachers, primary and secondary, is entirely dissociated from the question of local taxation and is based upon the equivalent grant, and that that grant is being withheld?

The PRIME MINISTER: Any claim of that kind, of course, will be considered. All the same, the funds at the disposal of the education authorities in Ireland are less than those available for the same purpose in England, Scotland and Wales because the local authorities here rate themselves and in Ireland they do not rate themselves.

Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why Ireland is not rated is that the Government will not pass the Bill, although we are quite willing to be rated?

The PRIME MINISTER: I notice that my hon. Friend did not listen to the
second part of my answer. I stated that that was the reason why the Government introduced the Bill, and why they propose to proceed with it.

Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government promised £97,000 in respect of secondary education and £300,000 in respect of primary education, and that neither of these sums has been paid? That is my question.

The PRIME MINISTER: That will be considered. I could not answer straight away without some notice.

Mr. MOLES: If that be so, will the right hon. Gentleman see that justice is done?

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. LYNN: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether assurances have been given to the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland that the Government do not intend to proceed with the Irish Education Bill; and whether, in view of the urgency of educational reforms in Ireland, he will state the intentions of the Cabinet in this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The great pressure of Parliamentary business is responsible for the delay.

Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that negotiations have been going on, that while they are in progress tens of thousands of children cannot find school accommodation and that thousands of teachers are being half starved?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any negotiations that are going on.

Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the learned Attorney-General a few minutes ago announced that the Bill has been postponed because negotiations were going on in Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I did not know.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: This Bill has been down for almost six months for Second Reading. Will the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why the Government will not proceed with this absolutely necessary Measure?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend has been long enough here to know that there are a good many other Bills which are also necessary. You cannot run them all simultaneously. It is necessary to make some sort of selection.

RAILWAY EMPLOYES' DEPUTATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to ascertain how far the representatives of Irish railway employés with whom he was able to discuss last week the future relationship of Ireland and Great Britain represented the views held by the great mass of Ulster railway employés; and can he say how and by whom the delegation was chosen?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information as to whether the views of Ulster employés were represented.

Mr. MOLES: They were misrepresented.

DISORDER, LONDONDERRY.

Colonel GRETTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether there is any news to-day from Londonderry to communicate to the House?

Mr. HENRY: Five hundred men of the Norfolk Regiment arrived yesterday afternoon. Desultory firing mainly from housetops continued during the night. Wounded civilians who were being conveyed in ambulances by troops were fired on. The troops returned fire, with what result is not known. The city was quieter this morning. General Carter-Campbell is in Derry and General Tudor is on his way there to ensure fullest possible co-operation between civil and military authorities. The curfew regulation was applied last night until further order.

Colonel ASHLEY: Who is in command in Derry? Are the civil authorities in command or the military authorities?

Mr. HENRY: The military authorities.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: How many soldiers have been wounded?

Mr. HENRY: I cannot give the Noble Lord the information he desires, but have no report of any soldiers being wounded up to the present.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the disarmament of the civil population in Derry been begun?

Mr. HENRY: The disarmament of the disloyal portion of the population has always been proceeding in Derry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask to what portion of the population the right hon. Gentleman refers as the disloyal portion?

Mr. HENRY: The portion that are not applying to the Government for permission to keep arms.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether the military will have full discretion to take such steps as they think fit?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, absolutely.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT (IRELAND).

Major O'NEILL: 5.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been made up to date under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919?

Mr. HENRY: Under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, which enables the Estates Commissioners to acquire untenanted land for the provision of agricultural holdings for ex-service men, the Commissioners have made offers to purchase some 4,200 acres, and their offers have been accepted in respect of some 750 acres, but the proceedings have not yet sufficiently advanced in these cases to take possession of the lands. In respect of 870 acres for which their offers have not been accepted, compulsory proceedings have been instituted by the Commissioners.. In addition, the Commissioners are negotiating for and making inquiries as regards other lands. The Local Government Board have now almost completed thirty-five schemes for the provision of cottages and plots for 716 ex-service men. They have also undertaken to purchase by agreement about 100 acres of land for the purpose of some of the above schemes.

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any ex-service men have been yet settled on the land in Ireland?

Mr. HENRY: No, Sir; but I will inquire about that.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to
where this land is in Ireland—in what province?

Commander Viscount CURZON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which will go to show that the Sinn Fein party will allow the ex-service men to take possession of such land?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord should give notice of that question.

CIVIL SERVICE.

Captain LOSEBY: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state the anticipated number of vacancies in the permanent Civil Service in the current financial year and the proportion that it is intended to allot to ex-service men temporarily employed in the Civil Service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): All Departments are at present revising their permanent establishments in the light of post-War requirements, and it is impossible to state at the moment what the number of permanent vacancies will be. As regards the appointment of ex-service men, I beg to refer to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea on the 22nd June.

Captain LOSEBY: Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of discontinuing the permanent examinations for the Civil Service until such time as all these temporary ex-service men who are competent are absorbed?

Sir S. HOARE: Has the Committee to inquire into this subject been already set up, and if not when will it be?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope that it will set up immediately.

Captain LOSEBY: 54.
asked the Prime Minister to state the approximate number of Civil servants permanently employed under the age of 40 who did not serve overseas during the recent war and are in receipt of salaries of £800 per annum or more; and whether he will consider the advisability of replacing them by such ex-service men as would have occupied positions of equal responsibility if they had not been indispensable elsewhere?

Mr. BALDWIN: The collection of the information desired would not only involve a great amount of detailed labour, but would not in my opinion furnish any useful result. Every effort has been made
and will continue to be made, both Departmentally and by special machinery of inter-departmental transfer, to secure that the interests of Civil servants are in no way prejudiced on account of their absence on military service.

Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not allow the House to decide as to the desirability or otherwise of this proposal? Does he not realise that many Members of this House think it is most important that information of this kind should be published?

TRAINEES (GRANTS).

Mr. FORREST: 103.
asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to be able to publish the new regulations affecting grants to trainees and the extension of the time in which an application can be made for a grant to the Civil Liabilities Department?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The new regulations dealing with grants to trainees and the extension of the time in which an application for a grant can be made to the Civil Liabilities Department are now in the hands of the printer, and copies will be distributed to all Local Employment Exchanges and Local War Pensions Committees as soon as available. I will send my hon. Friend a copy.

CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.

Mr. HALLAS: 105 and 106.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is responsible for the Civil Liabilities Department, and, if so, since what date; what are its powers and duties; and what is the number and cost of the official staff, giving the central and each district total separately, for each year since the creation of the Department?
(2) whether the Civil Liabilities Department, up to August last, was administered by a group of officials drawn from the Treasury and Local Government staff; whether the Department has since been re-organised and placed in charge of a number of ex-officers demobilised from St. Ermin's Hotel and elsewhere, the original staff having been dismissed; and whether he is aware that the administration of this Department is giving occasion to dissatisfaction on the score of incompetence and extravagance?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As the answer to these two questions is very lengthy, per-
haps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply promised:

The responsibility for the Civil Liabilities Department was formally transferred from the Local Government Board to the Ministry of Labour on the 1st April, 1919. Its powers and duties are to administer schemes under regulations approved by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury for providing assistance towards meeting serious financial hardship caused to officers and men whilst serving in His Majesty's Forces, and to assist discharged and demobilised officers and men to resettle in civil life where, on account of their service in the Forces, they are now faced with serious financial hardship.

The cost of the whole staff of the Civil Liabilities Department for each financial year since the inception of the Department is as follows:—


Administration Expenses.
Grants made.
Percentage of Administration Expenses to Grants made.


1916–17
…
59,293
806,843
7.2


1917–18
…
114,790
3,245,791
3.5


1918–19
…
87,895
4,171,855
2.0


1919–20
…
109,092
3,405,727
3.2

It should be observed that these figures are for the financial year ending 31st March, and therefore the final figure for 1919–20 includes expenditure both before and after the re-organisation of the Department to which my hon. Friend refers in Question 106. It should be noted, further, that the percentage of administration expenses, while higher than in the year 1918–19, is lower than in the two preceding years, although the Department was called upon during 1919ߝ20 to deal with the exceptional volume of work case upon it by the Resettlement Scheme which came into operation following upon demobilisation.

It is the fact that until November of last year, not August, as stated in my hon. Friend's question, the officers immediately controlling the Civil Liabilities Department were loaned to the Ministry of Labour by the Ministry of Health. The Civil Liabilities Department was re-organised in November, and in appointing
officers to take control the men best suited for the work were chosen. It is not the fact that the whole of the original staff was dismissed. A proportion of the headquarters staff was retained. But the opportunity was taken to dispense with the services of a large number of Commissioners in the country who had been originally appointed on a part-time basis.

With regard to the last part of the question, I am satisfied that very great improvement indeed in the administration has followed the re-organisation. As a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, when Captain McClellan—the Controller—took over, he found himself faced with other 70,000 arrears. By dint of the greatest industry and careful re-organisation, he has now cleared these off, and is in a position to take up current applications as they arise. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate what this means to the people at the other end of the line.

EGYPT (NILE PROJECTS COMMISSION).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the Nile Projects Commission, formed to inquire into the charges made by Sir William Willcocks and Colonel Kennedy against Sir Murdoch MacDonald, has been received; and whether this Report will be circulated as a Command Paper?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Nile Projects Commission was appointed by the Egyptian Government to investigate the technical soundness of the projects and the proper incidence of their cost as between Egypt and the Sudan rather than to inquire into personal charges which are incidental. Their report has not yet been received, and consequently I am unable to reply to the latter part of the question.

HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to undertake and carry through the reform of the House of Lords within the tenure of the present Parlia-
ment and before another General Election?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

TURKEY (BOZANTI).

Viscount CURZON: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the town of Bozanti has been captured by Turkish Nationalists; whether there was a large dump of ex-German ammunition and stores concentrated there; whether this was there when the town was in British occupation; and, if so, why it was not dstroyed before being handed over?

The PRIME MINISTER: Soon after the Armistice a small detachment of British and Indian engineers was sent to Bozanti in order to keep the railway line working; but this railway was shortly afterwards handed over to the French, and subsequently remained within the French sphere of occupation. A British brigade was for a time lent to the French to assist them in Cilicia. Field-Marshal Lord Allenby relinquished command over this area as from November, 1919, when the situation did not necessitate the destruction of this dump, which consisted largely of discarded railway and mechanical transport material. It is not known what steps General Gourand may have taken to destroy it since he assumed responsibility for the area in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MANDATED TERRITORIES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister when the mandates for Togoland, Cameroons, and Tanganyika Territory will be drafted, and who by; and whether any representation regarding the terms for the mandates for these territories from persons interested in the development of these territories should be addressed to him or to which Department of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of the mandates under which the Togoland, Cameroons, and Tanganyika Territories will be held are under consideration by the Drafting Committee which is attached to the Conference of Ambassadors in Paris. Representations concerning them can be addressed to the Foreign Office
and the Colonial Office, but I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that the terms of these mandates in their general lines have already been fixed by Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles.

Captain W. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the terms of the mandate have been settled by the Peace Conference, or should they be referred to the League of Nations Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: I said that the general terms have been fixed by the Treaty of Versailles. One draft will be submitted to the League of Nations.

Captain BENN: That is to say, the draft is being prepared, not by the League of Nations at all?

Lord R. CECIL: Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of publishing the draft of the mandate before the terms are finally settled by the Council of the League, in the same way that the Covenant was published before the terms were accepted?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the terms be embodied in a Bill to be presented to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will not be necessary to have a Bill.

Mr. KILEY: 42.
asked whether the Council of the League of Nations has discussed the question how the cost of administering mandated territories is to be met; if so, whether any general principles have been formulated?

The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I am aware, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether local authorities have been requested to take suitable action to assist in securing recruits for the Territorial Army; and, if so, whether he can see his way to request them also to take suitable action to popularise the idea of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. I do not think that the hon. Member's proposal is practicable.

GERMANY.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when it is proposed to invite Germany to become a member of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: Germany will be invited to become a member of the League of Nations when she shows an earnest desire to carry out her obligations under the Peace Treaty.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already stated in this House that Germany is making every effort to carry out these obligations?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I certainly did not, not with regard to disarmament. I have a very strong feeling on that subject that she is not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for War has stated repeatedly in this House that Germany is doing all she can in that direction?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. RAFFAN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether Poland has informed the Supreme Council of her intention to occupy German territory should Germany fail to carry out her engagement with the Poles; and, if so, whether he can see his way to referring the matter to the Council of the League of Nations, as being one which endangers the peace of the world?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information in regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

ARMENIA.

Mr. RAFFAN: 47.
asked whether the League of Nations, in its reply to the invitation of the Supreme Council that it should undertake the mandate for Armenia, stated that it would endeavour to find a mandatory, but that in order to have some hope of success it must first have assurances from the Supreme Council as to the military question, the financial question, and the question of Aremenia's access to the sea; and, if so, why the Supreme Council did not act on the recommendations of the League?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reply of the Council of the League of Nations to the Supreme Council was to the effect that, while they were entirely in favour of the mandate for Armenia being entrusted to one of the Powers, they would hesitate to sound the Powers as to their willingness to accept it without knowing more of the intention of the Supreme Council on certain fundamental points, namely, the military question, the financial question, and the question of Armenia's access to the sea, which is part of the general question of the frontiers of Armenia on which President Wilson has been asked to adjudicate. There has been no question of disregarding the recommendations of the League.

Lord R. CECIL: Have any further communications passed between the Supreme Council and the Council of the League with reference to the mandate for Armenia?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have communicated from San Remo to the Council of the League the decision arrived at with regard to the United States of America.

Lord R. CECIL: Since then I understand that America has definitely declined the mandate. I do not know whether that is so or not. Has any further attempt been made? Perhaps I had better put down a question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at all sure. Speaking from memory, I do not think that America has officially declined.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the Prime Minister explain how the League of Nations is to function, without pounds, shillings or pence, horse, foot, or artillery?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter which can be raised in the course of Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GENERAL WRANGEL'S OFFENSIVE

Mr. SWAN: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British missions with General Wrangel have yet been withdrawn?

The PRIME MINISTER: The withdrawal of the British mission with
General Wrangel is now in progress, and is expected to be completed shortly.

Captain W. BENN: 38.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state whether General Wrangel has transported any of his troops in the recent offensive by water; and whether any British shipping was used for this purpose, or any protection given by the British Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is understood that General Wrangel transported some of his troops for the recent offensive by water. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Captain BENN: Was not there a naval force present at the time of transportation in or near those waters?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What shipping was this?

The PRIME MINISTER: It was not British shipping.

BRITISH PRISONERS (BAKU).

Viscount CURZON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give definite information to allay the anxiety of their relatives, with reference to the officers and men captured and held as slaves at Baku; can he state whether regular and up-to-date information is available; whether the fate of the officers and men has formed the subject of any of the conferences with Krassin; and whether, if satisfactory information is not immediately forthcoming, negotiations with Krassin will be discontinued and his presence, and that of other Bolsheviks in any capacity whatever, will not be tolerated in this country except as prisoners under the same conditions as our men are reported to be?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on Monday last.

Viscount CURZON: With respect to the latter part of my question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very grave anxiety is felt by the relatives of all these men?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. It is very natural, and I can assure my Noble Friend that the Government realises that, and we are doing our best.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is it not possible to get some definite information
on this subject, before you begin to talk about trading with the people who are treating our men in this way?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is what we have in mind. I have answered a question before on the subject. We are pressing this particular point.

SOVIET TRADE DELEGATION.

Colonel GRETTON: 71.
asked the Prime Minister what is the position of negotiations with M. Krassin; has any preliminary agreement been reached upon which negotiations are to proceed; and, if so, will he state what has been agreed?

The PRIME MINISTER: The negotiations with M. Krassin are proceeding, but have not yet been concluded. I hope shortly to be able to make a statement to the House on the subject.

Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the statement that he has imposed entirely new conditions in this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it would be desirable at this stage to say anything, and the House will realise the reason why.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope next week. I may tell the House that the responsibility for delay does not rest with the Government.

ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what is the date of the expiration of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance; is it intended to renew it; and will the terms of the new alliance be registered with the secretariat of the League of Nations before ratification by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to Article VI. of the Agreement of 13th July, 1911, between the United Kingdom and Japan. With regard to the second part of the question, I must refer to the reply given on the 3rd instant to the hon. Member for Lincoln. In answer to the third part of the question, I have to repeat the assurance given on the 10th
instant to the hon. and gallant Member for East Leyton—namely, that His Majesty's Government have every intention of adhering strictly to Article XVIII. of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Commander BELLAIRS: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the feeling that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance should not be renewed for a term of years before the British Government has been able to have the full advantage of understanding the views and desires of the new Government which will come into power in the United States next March?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which by Article VI. of the Treaty cannot expire till 13th July, 1921, is under consideration. His Majesty's Government are not unaware of the feeling to which the hon. and gallant Member draws attention, but they are not in a position at the present moment to make any public statement on the subject.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Have the Government decided to give notice in July next, or to allow it to go on for another year?

The PRIME MINISTER: That has not been decided.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Cannot the views of China be taken into consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take all relevant considerations into account.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Treaty be put before the House, as was done in the case of the Anglo-American Convention?

Mr. REMER: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Anglo-Japanese Treaty; if so, will he take steps to see that the Clauses in that Treaty dealing with the free importation of manufactured silk goods are more equitable to the manufacturers of this country; and will he give an undertaking that free importation of any goods will only be promised in exchange for free importation of British manufactures into Japan?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of the renewal of the Treaty of Commerce
and Navigation of 3rd April, 1911, between Great Britain and Japan has not yet come up for consideration. As the hon. Member will see by reference to Article XXVJI of the Treaty in question, the earliest date at which it can expire is 16th July, 1923.

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Sir J. D. REES: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the 12 months ending 31st August, 1914, 200,000 standard barrels of beer paid ã80,000 duty; that during the 12 months ending 31st March, 1920, 130,000 such barrels paid £450,000 duty, the Income Tax figures for the same periods comparing as £4,500 compares with £26,000; and whether, in view of these figures, how long the Government proposes to continue the present rates of duty and restrictive regulations, and to continue in operation the Central Control Board?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): During the 12 months ending 31st August, 1914, there was a uniform rate of duty of 7s. 9d. the standard barrel on beer brewed in the United Kingdom; hence the duty payable on 200,000 standard barrels would be £77,500. During the year ending 31st March, 1920, two rates of duty were in force, namely, 50s. the standard barrel from 1st to 30th April, 1919, and 70s. the standard barrel from 1st May, 1919, to 31st March, 1920. Assuming that one-twelfth of the 130,000 standard barrels mentioned in the question was brewed each month, the duty for the year would be £444,000. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to what has already been said on this subject.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman not see that this is a very crushing duty to pay, and that its incidence affords ground for speedily dealing with the difficulty to which I refer in the latter part of the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member will find it difficult to produce evidence that this burden is crushing the industry.

Major COLFOX: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in some
districts, notably in Somerset, licensed premises are open during the pre-War hours, while others within a few hundred. yards on the north-west corner of Dorset in a controlled area are restricted to six-and-a-half hours a day; and whether, in view of the continued delay in abolishing the Central Control Board and in introducing the promised Licensing Bill, he will take steps to place all licence-holders on the same footing as regards hours of trading?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that differentiation of hours exists between areas which are scheduled for the purposes of the Liquor Control Regulations and other areas, but there is general agreement that, so far as scheduled areas are concerned, a complete return to pre-War hours would be undesirable, and the scheduled hours applicable to scheduled areas cannot be made applicable to unscheduled areas without legislation. At present some differentiation appears inevitable.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it is true that the Chairman of the Central Control Board is to be our next Ambassador in Berlin?

FLOATING DEBT.

Mr. BRIANT: 37.
asked what is the Government's policy with regard to the funding of the floating debt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of the Government is to seize any suitable opportunity for funding the floating debt, and in the meantime to endeavour to pay off a portion of it.

Captain W. BENN: Will the floating debt be funded entirely by seizing every opportunity? Is there no more practical scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend. We hope to pay off some of the floating debt from the surplus provided by the new taxation as explained in my Budget speech.

Captain BENN: 79.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the total amount of the floating debt outstanding on Saturday last; and what was the total subscription to the Treasury Bonds to that date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The floating debt on Saturday, 19th June, was £1,291,314,000, and the Exchequer receipts from Treasury Bonds £7,385,000. As I have already informed the hon. Member on several occasions, he has occupied the time of the House in asking for the restatement of information which is published weekly in the newspapers.

Captain BENN: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is entirely satisfied with the Government scheme for funding the debt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question which the hon. Member has put to me on each occasion on which he has asked for a repetition of figures which had already appeared.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this is the right place in which to give information of vital importance to the country, as well as in the Press?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To me it seems a pity to waste question time, which hon. Members complain is not enough, in order to ask for information which has already been published, and is published weekly in the Press.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some useful purpose is served by bringing to the notice of the Members present the state of our finances?

OIL (MESOPOTAMIA).

Mr. HANCOCK: 39.
asked whether it is proposed to allow the export of oil from Mesopotamia freely to all countries, or whether it is proposed to impose an Excise Duty on oil other than that exported to certain countries?

The PRIME MINISTER: No proposals to impose discriminatory duties of the nature suggested have been made, but such matters will be decided by the administration of Mesopotamia when constituted.

EXCHEQUER (COMPTROLLERGENERAL).

Captain TUDOR - REES: 50.
asked whether the office of Comptroller of the
Issues of His Majesty's Exchequer still exists; and, if so, who occupies it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir Henry Gibson, K.C.B., is Comptroller-General of the Receipt and Issue of His Majesty's Exchequer and Auditor-General of Public Accounts.

EX-KAISER (TRIAL).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 51.
asked when the last step in the direction of bringing the ex-Kaiser to trial was taken; and what was the nature of it?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Lord Privy Seal made a statement in the House on the 19th April as to the course of the negotiations with the Netherlands Government relative to the extradition of the ex-Emperor. I have nothing to add to that statement.

Captain TUDOR-REES: Have no steps been taken since then?

The PRIME MINISTER: No steps have been taken. The Netherlands Government refused to hand him over.

Captain W. BENN: Then this is the finish of the talk about hanging the Kaiser?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that your friend is not quite safe yet.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY COMMITTEE.

Mr. A. SHAW: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet say whether the Report of the Wireless Telegraphy Committee will be made available to the House and the public?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped that the Report will be issued in the course of a few days.

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Major GLYN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has been summoned to meet in the near future; and what was the date of the last full meeting?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is hoped to have a meeting next week.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (JAMAICA).

Commander BELLAIRS: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give particulars of the preference which Jamaica has given to cotton piece goods from Great Britain; and whether he could publish the acceptance which the Government sent on behalf of the people of this country for this generous act?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson, for Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I am aware that the Legislative Council of Jamaica has had under its consideration proposals for the grant of a preference to goods from the British Empire, but the proposals at first submitted were not acceptable to the Council and no intimation has reached the Secretary of State that any preference has yet been granted.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Major PRESCOTT: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the expediency of not proceeding further with the Unemployment Insurance Bill pending the Report of the Departmental Committee on the work of the Unemployment Exchanges?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the dread of unemployment is undoubtedly one of the causes of under production, the Government think it is essential that the Unemployment Insurance Bill should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment. Accordingly it is not practicable to postpone further proceedings on this Bill pending the Report of the Departmental Committee to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

BOULOGNE CONFERENCE.

Mr. PALMER: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether any statement can be made to the House outlining the decisions come to at the conference at Boulogne; and whether any of these decisions involve the undertaking of new obligations which may result in additional burdens upon the British taxpayer?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I need add anything to the official communiques which were issued from Boulogne and to the explanations which I gave to the House yesterday.

Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States have been asked to forego any of this debt due from us?

OVERSEAS TROOPS (AFFILIATION ORDERS).

Mr. C. PALMER: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the many cases where Australians and Canadians have avoided affiliation orders by leaving the country, he will confer with the representatives of the Dominions with a view to devising legislation which will secure to the women who are suffering from the evasion of the law the monetary contributions due to them under orders of the Court?

Colonel L. WILSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 22nd June to the hon. Member for Exeter, in reply to a similar enquiry.

OVERSEAS TRADE CREDITS.

Captain W. BENN: 73.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any overseas trade credits have been granted; and, if so, from what date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to reply. As stated in my answer to the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle division on the 22nd June, the amount of advances to date under the Export Credit scheme is £28,242 8s. 4d. These advances have been made since 8th September, 1919.

Captain BENN: As the Second Reading will not be taken until to-morrow, on what Parliamentary authority are these grants to be made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like notice of that question.

LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent decision of the Government not to propose a capital levy on Wartime increase of wealth, the Government
will reconsider its policy of maintaining a Land Valuation Department; and, if not, if he will state on what grounds the expenditure required for this purpose is justified?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: By far the larger portion of the staff engaged on Land Valuation Duties under the Finance Act, 1909–10, was abolished some years ago. But the Land Valuation Department has important duties to perform wholly unconnected both with the Land Values Duties and with any capital levy. Whether the staff now maintained is more than is required for the efficient discharge of these duties is a question which the Select Committee of this House on National Expenditure has consented to examine at the request of the Board of Inland Revenue and myself.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what are the duties of the Land Valuation Department?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a repetition of a question put to me about a month or six weeks ago. I then had a long Memorandum prepared, explaining the duties of the Department, but I would not spend the time of the House reading the Memorandum at Question time. I announced that I would ask the Select Committee on National Expenditure to investigate the work to be done and the staff employed. That they are doing, and I ask my hon. Friend to await the Report of that Committee to this House. I chose that Committee as an independent Committee in order that Members of the House should not be asked to accept the mere ipse dixit of the Government. It will be laid before the House, and published with the evidence taken before the Committee.

Mr. RAFFAN: In view of the fact that the House has not yet come to a decision as to whether the Land Values Duties are to be continued or others take their place, is not the reference to the Select Committee premature?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it fair to the Prime Minister that his strenuous work of ten years ago should be scrapped in this manner?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

CARRIAGE LICENCES.

Mr. J. F. GREEN: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the total proceeds of the carriage licences in Great Britain in the standard year 1909, giving the amounts derived from motor vehicles and horse-drawn vehicles, respectively; and whether he will state the sum paid in the year 1918–19 to local authorities out of the growing proceeds of the motor carriage licenses to make good the declining proceeds in respect of horse-drawn carriages, in accordance with the provisions of Section 88 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as amended by Section 18 of the Revenue Act, 1911?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total proceeds of carriage licences in 1908–9 were £600,956 5s. Separate figures are not available for motor-vehicles and horse-drawn vehicles. The proceeds of the duties in 1917–18 were less than the proceeds in the standard year in 26 cases, and the amount paid from the Consolidated Fund in 1918–19, in respect of these deficiencies, was £3,211 6s. 5d.

MOTOR LICENCES.

Mr. GWYNNE: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, the amount receivable by counties or county boroughs in respect of motor licences, which forms part of the assigned revenue under the 1888 Act, was fixed at the amount received in the area during the financial year ended 31st March, 1909, notwithstanding what amount may have been collected in the area; whether he is aware that the sum paid over under this scheme to the county borough of Eastbourne amounts to £1,079 per annum, whereas during the last year, £2,625 was actually collected in the county borough and what steps he proposes to take under the Finance Bill to adjust this state of affairs?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the provisions of the Finance Act, the benefit of the increased duties on motor cars imposed in 1910, accrues to the Exchequer for the Road Fund, and not to the local authorities. I am not prepared to alter the law in this respect, particularly at a time when I am proposing to make largely increased grants from the proceeds of
motor taxes for roads, and to retain no benefit from these taxes for the Exchequer.

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the local authorities are to get that money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question is answered by the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. GWYNNE: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the present proposals of the Finance Bill, it is intended to issue quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly motor licences; whether he is aware that this will increase the inquiry and clerical work of counties and county boroughs; and, in view of the Treasury grant falling short of carrying out the work in certain cases, what steps he is proposing to take to remedy this, and so avoid throwing further burdens on the ratepayers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply to this question. It is proposed to issue quarterly licences, as set out in Clause 12 (2) of the Finance Bill. I am aware that this will increase the administrative work devolving upon County Councils and County Borough Councils. It is the intention of the Government that the whole of the costs, reasonably and necessarily incurred by County Councils and County Borough Councils in the levy and collection of the duties, shall be defrayed out of the proceeds of the duties. The administrative cost of collecting the proposed new tax will be proportionately very much less than that of collecting the old taxes.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is to be the price of quarterly licences?

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrears of the Excess Profits Duty remain uncollected for the years 1916, 1917, and 1918; and what explanation can he suggest for the large amounts of duty remaining unpaid for these years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No detailed analysis has been prepared of the arrears of Excess Profits Duty outstanding for the three years mentioned; and in view of
the time and labour involved, I cannot undertake to authorise the preparation of this information. Payment of the greater portion of the arrears outstanding is in suspense pending the settlement of appeals and other questions which cannot yet be determined, and it may be anticipated that upon a final adjustment of liabilities, the total figure in assessment will be very substantially reduced.

CURRENCY NOTES.

Mr. KILEY: 82.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the legal maximum for the fiduciary note issue for the current year; and what is the total amount of fiduciary notes outstanding?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The maximum fixed for the fiduciary issue of currency notes this year is £320,600,000 and the present amount of the fiduciary issue is £315,112,399 10s.

GAME AND HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) COMMITTEE.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any further representations from the Game and Heather Burning (Scotland) Committee as to printing a limited number of copies of the evidence given before them; and whether, in view of the desire of the public that the evidence may be available before the passing of the Agriculture Bill, he will now accede to the Committee's request and thus expedite the issue of the Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have received no further representations from the Committee.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That part asks whether I will accede to the Committee's request, but I have received no such request.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of importance attached to this which is not published in the newspapers weekly?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information about the subject. I am asked
whether the Committee has made certain representations and it has made none.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this evidence was taken in private and the evidence is urgently desired by the agricultural community in Scotland, in view of the consideration of the Agricultural Bill in Committee at present?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really know nothing about it. It is not within my personal knowledge or Departmental competence. It seems to me it is a question which should be directed either to the Committee, or a question should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon.Gentleman aware that last week he said he had had representations to this effect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that. I shall be delighted if the hon. Member will show me the answer.

Major WOOD: I will do so.

MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 94.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement published in Belgrade with regard to the condition of the people in Montenegro to the effect that the people in that country are half-naked, half the population starving, and thousands of Montenegrin children bare-footed and in rags, and that in such circumstances it is easy to understand how the Montenegrins, humiliated and suffering, take refuge in the mountains and ask for the return of their king and the restoration of their independence; and whether he has information showing the accuracy or otherwise of this statement made by Serbians opposed to the policy of their Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should be obliged if my hon. and learned Friend would inform me of the nature and date of the published statement to which he refers, and if possible, of the authority on which such statement is made. I shall then be happy to have it considered. At the present moment I am unable to answer his question.

Mr. McNEILL: I understand that according to the rules it is not competent for a Member to quote from a newspaper. I made it as clear as possible that it was published in the Press in Belgrade, and how am I to give my hon. Friend further information as to the authority on which the statement is made.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend can communicate the source of his information to me privately.

FOREIGN CAPITAL (UNITED KINGDOM).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 95.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any measures are being adopted to encourage or discourage the investment of foreign capital in the United Kingdom?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No measures are at present being adopted with either object.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that twelve months ago I was informed by his Department that the question was under careful consideration?

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1919.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 96.
asked the President of the Board of Education if on the 4th instant he received a deputation from the National Association of Inspectors of Schools and Educational Organisers with reference to the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1919; and, if so, whether, and to what extent, he is able to recommend amendment to the Act in accordance with their representations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I recently received a deputation, which included representatives of the association in question, on the subject referred to. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 17th instant to the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Butcher).

ALIENS.

Colonel BURN: 97.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that 392 enemy aliens landed in
this country during the month of May; and will this influx of enemy aliens be allowed to continue when there is not sufficient housing accommodation for our own people?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): A few of these aliens were men allowed to return to their British-born families on the recommendation of the Committee established under Section 10 (4) of the Act of 1919. All the others were admitted in accordance with Section 10 (1) of that Act on special grounds and for short periods not exceeding three months. At the end of the periods fixed they will leave the country and no question of housing accommodation is involved.

Colonel BURN: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that all these men go back to their own country in six months?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, in three months.

Major NALL: May I ask of the Home Secretary, is he sure they do go back at the end of three months, and is he aware he told me on Tuesday that the ex-Austrian Consul in Manchester had gone back, and that he is now in Manchester and has been there all the time?

Mr. SHORTT: My information was contrary to that, but he may have had his time extended for some business reason.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 98.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in the event of the threat of the Workers' Union to call a strike of agricultural labourers of their union in order to obtain a minimum wage of 50s. per week and reduced hours of work, protection from intimidation by pickets and other agents will be afforded to those labourers who are content to abide by the awards of the Agricultural Wages Board, and persons trespassing on land for the purpose of creating a strike will be summarily dealt with?

Mr. SHORTT: In the event of such a strike, it would be the duty of the police to afford all the protection within their power against violence and intimidation, but it is not part of their functions to deal with trespassers who are not guilty
of violence or disorder and commit no criminal offence.

Mr. RAFFAN: The question asks whether the right hon. Gentleman will prohibit picketing, and is not peaceful picketing perfectly legal?

Mr. SHORTT: What I said was protection against violence and intimidation.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).

Major NALL: 99.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that under the Shops Act, 1912, Section 5, any local authority may issue an Order requiring shops to close at 7 o'clock, he will consider the desirability of taking steps to enable local authorities to issue Orders to meet the local needs of their respective areas when the Defence of the Realm Act expires on 31st August next?

Mr. SHORTT: As was stated by the Leader of the House yesterday, the Government are considering the introduction of a Bill to extend the existing provision regarding the general early closing of shops for a short period. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member will be kept in mind.

Major NALL: May I ask whether there is any obstacle in the way of local authorities issuing orders for 7 o'clock closing if it is really desired in, the district, and whether it is not, as a matter of fact, possible for them to do so under the Act named in the question?

Mr. SHORTT: There is no legal opposition to it; there may be local opposition.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (SALE OF LANDS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 100.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Charity Commissioners have no statutory or other power to insist that the proceeds of the sale of charity lands shall be paid to the Official Trustees of Charity Lands, but have power only to give directions for securing the due investment of these proceeds; and whether, in cases where the due investment of such proceeds will be fully secured by payment to the trustees of the charity, the Commissioners are entitled to insist on such proceeds being paid to the Official Trustees of Charity Lands instead of being paid to the trustees of the charity?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first portion of the hon. and learned Member's question is in the negative. In answer to the second portion of his question, I am informed by the Charity Commissioners that they claim to have jurisdiction in the case of every sale of charity land authorised by them, to include, if they so think fit, in the Order of the Board authorising the sale, a direction that the proceeds of sale, when received by the trustees of the charity concerned, shall be paid to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds for investment in the name of the said Official Trustees in trust for the charity. The Charity Commissioners have acted upon the view that they possess jurisdiction to give such a direction ever since their powers were extended by the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855; and, so far as the present Commissioners are aware, the correctness of the view has never been questioned in a Court of law.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Could my right hon. Friend say what opportunity the House will have to discuss the action of the Charity Commissioners?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I have not the least idea.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.

Mr. HANCOCK: 101.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received a petition from the parents of those girls whose training for the Civil Service examinations is rendered useless by the suspension of this year's examination and the alteration of age limits for the future; and whether, in view of the hardship entailed upon them, any temporary adjustment can be made, such as has previously occurred when alterations in the examinations have taken place?

Mr. BALDWIN: The question is under consideration whether any provision can be made towards meeting the case of candidates adversely affected by the alteration of age limits; but I can give no undertaking as to the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DIRECT RATING.

Sir J. D. REES: 107.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the
Bradford Corporation has adopted a system whereby each tenant directly pays his own rates, the corporation saving £24,000 a year in consequence of its avoiding by this arrangement the payment of discount to landlords; and whether a system so beneficial to corporations, landlords and tenants can be introduced in all corporations?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I understand that the Finance Committee of the Bradford Corporation have recommended the adoption of the system of direct rating. The matter is one which is entirely within the discretion of the local authorities.

RENTS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Colonel NEWMAN: 109.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received resolutions urging that houses erected by a public authority should in all cases be let at a fair economic rent; that the tenants of such houses should have the option of purchase at fair prices with payments by instalments; and that the allocation of the houses should be by ballot, subject to a maximum income limit, regard being had to character, size of family, and war service of the applicant; and is he prepared to make Regulations to give effect to these recommendations?

Dr. ADDISON: I am requiring local authorities to obtain the best rents possible, regard being had to all the circumstances, but it is clearly impossible to obtain full economic rents on the present cost of building. I am anxious that the undoubted demand for individual ownership should be fully met and encouraged, and I have invited every local authority to prepare a scheme for house purchase and to take steps to make the facilities offered widely known in their district. A model scheme for purchase by instalments is in preparation. The selection of tenants is a matter for the local authorities, and I have already recommended them to bear in mind the special claims of ex-service men and of those having large families, and I believe that this is being done generally.

ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 111.
asked the Minister of Health whether, by the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill, as passed through this House, it is clearly provided that an
owner of a dwelling-house who bought his house before 1917 is entitled to recover possession for occupation as a residence for himself without the necessity of providing alternative accommodation; and, if not, whether he will take steps to make this point clear before the Bill passes into law?

Dr. ADDISON: The Bill as passed through this House provides that the existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment for the recovery of possession where the landlord became the landlord before the 30th September, 1917, and the dwelling-house is reasonably required by him for occupation as a residence for himself, and, in the opinion of the Court, greater hardship would be caused by refusing an order for possession than by granting it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement made the other night was that the owner in such a case would not have to prove the question of hardship at all?

Dr. ADDISON: I have referred to the statement to which the hon. Member alludes, and this statement in my answer is the correct one.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Debate and see that the Bill is drawn in conformity with his statement made in the Debate?

Dr. ADDISON: I will look at the statement again.

RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Colonel NEWMAN (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that numbers of business men whose rent is within the provision of the Rent Restrictions Bill are under notice to give up their premises to-day, and what action does he propose to take to safeguard such tenants until the Bill receives the Royal Assent?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no authority to take any action in this matter in anticipation of the passing of the Bill, but I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Sub-section (3) of Clause 5, which provides that where any order for possession has been made before the passing of the Act, but not executed, and in the opinion of the Court, the order would not have
been made if the Act had been in force, the Court may, on application by the tenant, rescind or vary such order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to the Act.

BOROUGH EXTENSION.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 108.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the high expenditure recently incurred by various local authorities in defending their position before county borough extension inquiries, particularly in the case of Sheffield and Nottingham; whether he will ascertain, and state to the House, the amount involved in each of those two cases, and take such steps as may be possible to prevent such expenditure of public money being forced upon local authorities in the future?

Dr. ADDISON: I will ask the local authorities to supply the information and will send it to my hon. Friend. In regard to the last part of the question, I have already stated in reply to previous questions that I am considering whether the procedure can be cheapened.

Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask how long the consideration will take?

Dr. ADDISON: It is difficult to say.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 110.
asked the Minister of Health whether any action has been taken by the consultative committee to which he referred the question of the expense to local authorities involved in the frequent county borough extension inquiries some months ago; and whether he is aware that, up to 18th June last, the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which is the authority most affected at this moment, had received from that committee no inquiry as to its expenditure in this connection?

Dr. ADDISON: As regards the first part of this question, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Rothwell Division (Mr. Lunn) on the 9th June, and as regards the second part, the general situation as to the cost of proposals under the existing procedure is no doubt within the knowledge of the Consultative Council.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that no answer has been received, and no action taken?

Dr. ADDISON: I have received a Report.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Will that Report be published, and, if so, when?

Dr. ADDISON: I am discussing that matter with the Council at their next meeting.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what will be the business for next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): On Monday: Government of Ireland Bill—Report of the Financial Resolution first, and then continuation in Committee.

Tuesday: Gas Bill, Report; Milk and Dairies Bill—Second Reading; and other Orders on the Paper.

Wednesday: Ministry of Mines Bill—Second Reading.

Thursday: Supply—Board of Trade Vote.

Friday: Unemployment Insurance Bill—Report.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to bring in the Bill to give legislative effect to the recent concessions announced to pre-War pensioners?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any decision has been arrived at as to when the Finance Bill will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I said yesterday that the Bill will be taken probably the week after next.

Viscount CURZON: When will the outstanding Votes on the Navy Estimates be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: They will be taken when they are asked for.

Sir H. CRAIK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the day upon which the Debate with regard to the occurrence at Amritsar will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We had hoped it would take place next week. I am in-
formed, however, that it is unlikely that General Dyer's Report will be received soon enough to enable that Debate to take place then.

Captain W. BENN: When will the Report of yesterday's Vote of Supply with regard to Mesopotamia be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that these Votes are taken when they are asked for.

Captain BENN: My right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. It is the Report of the Vote, not the Committee stage. That is not usually taken on a Supply day.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend, I think, knows the position. If it is asked for, the Report will be taken.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Report of this Vote will not be taken after eleven o'clock at night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: A certain number of days are given for Supply, and if this Vote is not asked for it will fall under the Guillotine.

Mr. LANE-FOX: As the Royal Show takes place on Tuesday, will the Milk and Dairies Bill be put off, in view of the fact that agricultural Members are interested in both?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that, but we will consider it.

INVERGORDON HARBOUR (TRANSFER) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 126.]

Bill, not amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

GAS REGULATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 127.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 127.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

St. Anne's-on-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Newport Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).

Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

FIFE-YOUNG'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Fife-Young's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Mr. Morison.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:—

Imperial War Museum Bill,

Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham Gas Bill,

Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the sale and use of seeds for sowing and of seed potatoes and to provide for the testing thereof." [Seeds Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Lincoln." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Lincoln Extension) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Hertford." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hertford Extension) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Liverpool Copper Wharf Company, Limited, to issue transferable certificates and warrants for the delivery of goods; and for other purposes." [Liverpool Copper Wharf Company, Limited (Delivery Warrants), Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LINCOLN EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HERTFORD EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

SEEDS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

LIVERPOOL COPPER WHARF COMPANY (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Nauru Island Agreement Bill): Mr. Acland, Mr. Bottomley, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Frederick Green, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Major M`Micking, Major M`Lean, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Mr. Mosley, Sir J. D. Rees, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Spoor, Mr. Stewart, Colonel Wedgwood, and Colonel Leslie Wilson.

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Kiley; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. George Thorne.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Waterson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Graham.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).

Sir PARK GOFF reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.—[PROGRESS.]

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

STATEMENT BY SIR E.GEDDES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £848,642, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes, &c., under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and certain Repayable Advances under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919." [Note.—£500,000 has been voted on account.]

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I shall have to trespass for some time on the indulgence of the Committee this afternoon, as I have two sections of my subject to which I must necessarily devote considerable attention. The third I will endeavour to reach if time permit. I propose to divide what I have to say to the Committee into three parts. First, the consideration of the Estimates; secondly, the condition of transportation of the country; and, If time should not permit, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that I should miss that, and leave the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with it in the Debate afterwards, in which I should be glad to give any further information that is required; and, thirdly, to outline generally the railway policy of the Government, together with the policy of the Government in regard to other means of transportation.
These are the first Estimates for a full year presented by the Ministry of Transport. The Supplementary Estimates for the close of last year were discussed In this House on the 9th and 10th March in Committee. The whole work of the Ministry was then reviewed, and the
principal salaries were sanctioned by the Committee. I made a long statement on the Vote for the Consolidated Fund. I issued a voluminous White Paper, No.654, explaining the work of the Department, and giving further relevant information, to which I shall have to refer at considerable length this afternoon. In these circumstances, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I do not enter into very great detail at this stage of the Estimates.
In my speech on the Consolidated Fund Vote on the 24th March, I invited investigation of the work and the Estimates of the Department by the Select Committee on National Expenditure. In response to that invitation, the Vote was postponed, and the investigation was made. I would like here to express my thanks to the Sub-Committee which carried out the investigation for the care and thoroughness with which they did it. I welcomed the inquiry asked for, and the Committee devoted much time and great care to considering the subject which they were charged to investigate. In order to estimate the work of the Department, they examined not only myself, but all the principal officials, including the nine heads of Departments. They went through the actual expenditure, and the forecast of the estimated expenditure of the Department in great detail. Of the actual expenditure, they did not condemn one penny that had been spent. Of the salaries paid or the posts filled, they did not recommend any reduction. Indeed, on the contrary, in every single department they left a margin, and therefore they recommended this Committee to leave a margin, for the necessary expansion of the work of the Ministry of Transport. Therefore, on one point, at any rate, as far as the Select Committee's investigations go, this Committee and the taxpayer may be reassured that where money has been spent, in the opinion of that Committee, it was not deserving of condemnation. Even in recommending, as they did, a reduction of the Estimates, they limited themselves to saying that they did not think the expenditure was necessary in the current year. They did not say it was not necessary at all, but that it was not necessary in the current year.
In view of what I might almost call the campaign of misrepresentation which has been carried on about the expenditure
of the Ministry of Transport, I think I am entitled to ask, as far as I can ask, that these facts which I have given should receive equal prominence. I have been accused of squandering the country's money. The Committee has not said that I have squandered a penny of it. They have endorsed everything that was spent, and recommended further expenditure. These attacks are now becoming a common form on all Ministers, but at any rate I think we have a right to expect fair representation from our critics. I ask the Committee to bear with me while briefly I make a reply to some of the accusations which, in the Press and on the platform, have been levelled against us.
4.0 P.M.
First, I will deal with the newspapers. It is quite easy to get a bad Press. If one takes a report compiled by a Committee composed of all classes of critics, such a report must necessarily be a compromise between contending opinions. If you take a blue pencil, and go through that Report, underline every word which is detrimental to the Department, and leave out the context, you can easily make out a case. That is what was done in this instance. The headlines came out, "Misleading Estimates." What were the "misleading estimates?" They were these: The Ministry of Transport, the Committee said, had submitted its Estimates with the salaries in one column and the War bonus elsewhere, which was in accordance with the Treasury practice. Yet the papers started out with, "Misleading Estimates of the Ministry of Transport." I ask, is that fair?
The Sub-Committee next said that the Ministry of Transport Act—I have not got the exact words, but I know what it meant—was "grandiose." That Act was the creation of the House of Commons. The Second Reading passed without a Division. The Report stage passed without a Division; the Third Reading passed by 245 Votes and none against, and thirteen Members of the Select Committee voted in favour of it. Yet the mere fact that the word "grandiose" is used makes a point against the Ministry for supposed squandering of national money. If it were grandiose, why did the thirteen Members of the Select Committee vote for it? "Grandiose" carries with it a certain imputation of
bombast. Why did they vote for it, if it were wrong? The Ministry of Transport was formed because the House of Commons considered it necessary. The Ministry does not manage the railways. It has never professed to manage the railways.
We hear and read of the great swollen establishment of the Ministry of Transport! The same people ask: Do we not manage the railways in every detail? Ought we not to know when a flitch of bacon is stolen or a tobacco pouch is missing? We do not. Our actual expenditure is £252,000. One big railway headquarter's establishment costs £550,000. I do not say that the Ministry of Transport does the work of the headquarters of a big railway. If we were expected to manage the railways—as some people expect—we should require a far larger establishment than anything that has ever yet been dreamed of. As to high salaries, the Select Committee said in their Report that the salaries in our Department were higher than in other Government Departments. They commented upon that, or rather they recorded the fact that many of the holders of these big posts had made great personal financial sacrifices in order to take them. They commented on the fact that in these particular posts you have to compete in the market for men. Let us see what the salaries are.
Of our salaries above £1,000,the average salary is £;1,444. You have got to compare that with the same stamp of man employed in the industry of transport outside. I have taken the average of three principal railway companies. Of the salaries paid by them above £1,000 the average is £2,000. Therefore you have the Ministry of Transport with an average salary of £1,444, and the railways with an average of £2,000. On that comparison, I claim that the salaries in our Department are not exorbitant. Another point was that there was a larger proportion of highly-paid staff in our Department. That was said in the Report of the Select Committee. They explained how that came about. They said that they had excluded typists, and this Ministry employed a larger number of typists, instead of doing its work in longhand. Those with £350 and above are as one to two below £350. That is above the average, because we use more typists. That is cheaper than the
larger and more expensive staff which uses longhand. If you add typists, the percentage, instead of being one to two, is about one to three. The figure of the Treasury, who are doing work comparable with the work which we are doing, is one to one of those above £350, compared with our figure, of one to three.
These are the main points in the newspaper misrepresentation of the Report of the Select Committee. I hope I have made them clear, or if not, that I shall do so before I sit down. With their main conclusion I have no quarrel. There was another misstatement which was much more serious because of the highly respected source from which it came, and which carries great weight on account of the speaker's authority in the country. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). I have here the report of his speech at Portsmouth on the 18th June. He said—
The Ministry of Transport was a new creation, and it had done nothing but lie on its back, contemplate the skies, ruminate over problems, and consider whether or not something might hereafter be done to improve the transport system of this country. This process, carried on by experts, costs us between £400,000 and £500,000 a year. It was a gross, profligate, inexcusable waste of the taxpayers' money.
On the next day the right hon. Gentleman had apparently read the report, or someone had warned him that he had gone too far. Speaking in the Isle of Wight, he then said:
In regard to the Ministry of Transport, he quite agreed that there were a large number of routine duties which this Department was performing, no doubt, with great proficiency, but they were all performed until this unnecessary new creation was brought to birth by a Department of the Board of Trade manned by moderately, or if they liked, ill-paid Civil servants, without the assistance of expensive experts from outside. It was an illustration of the policy pursued by the present Administration of multiplying recklessly, improvidently, without any calculation as to the necessities of the case, or as to the financial exigencies of the country, cumbrous and expensive bureaucratic machinery to perform duties which could be much more cheaply and much more efficiently performed as they were before.
That was a very weighty condemnation from a very weighty source. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman—a respect which I have always felt for him—I must reply that I am surprised. From a rigid economist, from such a
ruthless critic, from such an exponent of economical and efficient management and administration, I think I might have claimed greater accuracy. He said there was a wanton waste of £400,000 to £500,000 a year. The total expenditure is given in that Report on salaries as £252,000. There is an exaggeration of 100 per cent. Of that £250,000, £45,000 is due to old Departments which have been transferred to us, and are doing practically the same work as they did under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration. That leaves £207,648 of wilful and wanton waste! Of the £207,000 a very large proportion, an increasing proportion, has been certified by the Select Committee as thoroughly justified, and they could not recommend any reduction at all in it. That brings the wanton waste down to £120,000 from £400,000 or £500,000! That £120,000 is justified by the Select Committee, because in every instance, and in every Department, they recommended an increased expenditure. That is the "wanton waste!" I do not think it is quite fair so to trounce a beginner.

Mr. HOGGE: An old hand.

Sir E.GEDDES: Not a Parliamentary hand. Let us look at perhaps what matters more, because I believe these were election speeches. Is the money being fruitfully spent? Is the country being actually debited with £250,000 for salaries, and getting nothing in return? If it be getting something, is it something more or less than the expenditure? In every new business of any magnitude, you would expect to have a year or two before you would expect to show a profit. Everybody expects to sow for some time before he begins to reap The same thing may well apply to an administrative office of this kind, and if I can show that in one way or another I have already saved the country more than the expenditure incurred, and if I can persuade, or show, the Committee that that is an earnest of more saving to come, I think it w ill justify what I am doing.
I can give one instance of an actual saving, but I must ask the Committee not to press me too hard for more. It is not that I have not got them. but this is the reason: In this work, which will occupy more than 50 per cent. of the time of the officials of the Ministry, we are doing a technical audit in very difficult circum-
stances. That audit is an audit of the railway companies' accounts. They are spending the Government money. In transactions of this magnitude there are bound to be great differences of opinion, especially when agreements have not been strictly drawn involving great sums of money. If I tell the Committee that this debit by such and such a railway has been struck out, and that claim disallowed, that will perhaps appear in the newspapers and be misinterpreted, and be talked about in the wrong way. It will be unfair to the railways. The railways have played the game honourably with the Government as far as I know. They have helped the Government in every way. When it was a mere question of honourable terms they could be depended upon. Though no doubt they were keen business men, that is no dishonour. I will give one illustration. In 1915, in the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Runciman entered into an agreement with a certain railway company, the basis of which was a pool. Hon. Members in their experience of pools, especially of traffic pools, will realise that there are three essentials for a pool. The first is that you should fix the division of the various parties; the second that you should provide that each party shall adequately render the service, carry its proportion of business; and, thirdly, if there be any over-carrying by one party such party receives a carrying allowance or the working expenses for it. These are the three essentials of any pool of which I ever heard. This agreement which was made in 1915 omits two of the provisions which I have mentioned.

Mr. ASQUITH: By whom was it made?

Sir E.GEDDES: It was made by Mr. Runciman with the Metropolitan District Railway. That arrangement did not include the second and third provisions I have mentioned, the carrying allowance for excess, and the undertaking that there shall be an adequate service maintained. These two elementary provisions were forgotten—elementary in any general manager's office on the railway. That mistake has cost the country these amounts:—In 1916—£88,000; in 1917—£282,000; in 1918—£471,000; and in 1919—£707,000.

Captain W.BENN: Mr. Runciman was not there in 1918.

Sir E.GEDDES: But the agreement was made in 1915 during the War. In 1920 the estimate of the amount as given in evidence, is £1,000,000. [An HON.MEMBER: "For one railway"?] For one agreement.

Mr. ASQUITH: How was that agreement made?

Sir E.GEDDES: It was made by the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the work which is going to be done by the Ministry of Transport was work which would have been done much more economically, better, and more efficiently by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade before the War, in the railway branch—and that is the only branch the Board has for handling these questions—had a staff of 35. In 1916 they had a staff of 25. They were supposed to be doing the whole of the work that my Ministry is doing to-day in reference to railways. I will come back to that. That agreement was made by the Board of Trade in Mr. Runciman's time. In the years which have passed one point and another has been raised, and modifications have been made in the agreement; but these figures are the net result after these modifications have been allowed for. I heard this story by chance. It was mentioned in evidence by the Chairman of the company, who was before the Committee which sat to consider the question of London traffic—a Committee set up by my Department. That was how I heard of it. I did not know before that the agreement existed. I saw the Chairman immediately afterwards, and I said to him: "Look here. That sort of agreement is no good, and it is not the sort of thing to which I can assent." He replied: "I quite agree." I continued: "You will have to get that agreement cancelled." He agreed to have it cancelled, and had it cancelled.

Captain BENN: And the back money?

Sir E.GEDDES: I cannot say anything about the arrears. I am saying it was cancelled. The agreement was made in 1915. It was running on for years. It was one of many items, and the cancellation of that agreement alone justifies much of the expense of the Ministry of Transport.

Captain BENN: Why did not the Prime Minister cancel it three years ago?

Sir E.GEDDES: You cannot cancel an agreement except by agreement.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Why was the agreement made?

Sir E.GEDDES: The agreement was made for the period of the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was the man that made the muddle?"] There are other matters of a graver or similar character. There are other points than this £1,000,000.

Captain BENN: Why? Because the agreement was not cancelled!

Sir E.GEDDES: You cannot cancel an agreement except by agreement.

Captain BENN: Then why was it not agreed upon?

Sir E.GEDDES: There was no possibility of finding it out. Unless you came across it by chance, there was no staff to find it out. I can tell the Committee that, in spite of the fact that during the whole of the years since 1914 that this wonderful organisation was doing things so well and so much more cheaply than my Ministry can do them, there are accounts of 1914 which have not yet been cleared up! This is one of the ways in which my Department is making a saving.

Mr. C. PALMER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks of saving. Have we not lost £1,500,000 paid under the agreement. Shall we get that money back?

Sir E.GEDDES: I have saved the country the money which was to be spent this year. During the War the railway managers ran the railway machine. They kept it going. They worked the traffic, and worked it well. They acted within the current expenditure as honourable, impartial men. Those were the instructions from their Boards of Directors. That was their desire. I wish to pay a well-deserved tribute to them. But they had another function which was this: they had made agreements on behalf of their companies with the Government. These agreements were made across the table by both sides. They were not mutually solving a problem. The meeting of the two parties was to draft an agreement, and each of them was trying to do the best for his own side. There was nothing wrong in that. They made it perfectly clear.
As a matter of fact, I myself remember it being made perfectly clear. The first agreement was made in the early days of the War.
I think it is well—this is my second attempt—to bring to the notice of hon. Members of the Committee what these agreements mean. I believe hon. Members will agree with me when they understand what these agreements are, and they are in the published documents in White Paper No. 654 which I have already quoted. The first agreement guaranteed the net receipts of the railway, and was made under an Act which, obviously, was never intended to apply to a long war like the Great War. So tentative was the whole thing that the certificate as to the control of the railways had to be renewed from week to week throughout the War by a new certificate, which took them over for another week. No legislation was undertaken to correct what was obviously a state of affairs which was never contemplated by the Act. Personally I came on the scene too late to say anything about it. But I could never see why the railways should have continued the arrangement throughout the War. I would ask the Committee to think what that means. It means that every penny which was spent on the railways was taxpayers' money. It means that every penny the companies earned was taxpayers' money. During the War the expenditure of the railways was down to a minimum. It was the mere bare working expenses.
Arrears accumulated, and a situation developed which had to be met at the end of the War. The railway companies, quite wisely and very shrewdly, made agreements to meet the situation which came at the end of the War. During the War, as I have already said, the managers loyally and honourably ran the railways, and as far as they possibly could, with the assistance of two accountants as consultants in certain matters, tried honestly and fairly, with the whole financial responsibility resting upon them, to adjudicate between the Government on the one hand and railway proprietors on the other. That was during the War.
The War stopped. I found—for I had no knowledge of it before—that the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman) had agreed with the railways that the guarantee of net receipts should continue for two years after the War. These
two years were from some date yet to come. The two years have not begun to run yet. Under the Ministry of Transport Act, though few Members realise it, we reduced that guarantee by almost a year, because the two years by the Ministry of Transport Act runs from last August. Under the agreement, they do not begin to run yet, because the War is not officially at an end. The agreement to extend the control of the railways was given in this way. Here again I would invite the attention of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) to the way in which this magnificent staff of his did their work. Here is a letter from the chairman who made the agreement. The letter is dated 4th February, 1918.

Captain BENN: Yes—the Coalition Government!

Sir E.GEDDES: Pardon me for a moment. This is a letter from the Chairman who negotiates for the Railway Companies. He says:
I enclose a copy of Mr. Runciman's letter to me of September 5th, 1916. Needless to say the original is always at your service! You will remember the circumstances under which the letter was written, namely, that the general managers were disinclined to meet the men for a second (or was it the third?) time, having been thrown over by the men, unless they got an assurance from the Government that the period of control should be lengthened. The two years was a compromise.
This is the enclosed letter—
Many thanks for your private letter. The best reply I can give under the circumstances is to tell you what was decided at this morning's Cabinet. First, we agreed that a concession to the railway men was advisable, much as we all regretted the short life of the 'duration of the War' agreement. Second, the General Managers' Committee seemed to us to be the proper instrument for negotiating with the men. Third, they should do their best under the difficult conditions now surrounding the problem. Fourth, the Government undertakes to extend the period of the guarantee of net receipts to two years after the termination of the War.
That is what caused the Ministry of Transport Act.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Do I understand that a letter so important as the one which the right hon. Gentleman has just read, passing from the Board of Trade to the railway companies, was not recorded in the Department?

Sir E.GEDDES: It cannot be found. It could not be produced then, and it has not been produced since! I do not know what happened to it. Without those guarantees, it would have been unnecessary for the present relationship between the State and the railways to have existed at all.

Sir F.BANBURY: May I point out that these guarantees were continued in December, 1918, by the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bonar Law), and by the then President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): What has that to do with it?

Sir E.GEDDES: That was merely confirming the agreement.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite understand my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), but it has absolutely no bearing on this point. We undertook to carry out an agreement which had been made by our predecessors.

Mr. ASQUITH: The agreement was made in September, 1916, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Bonar Law) and I were members of the same Cabinet.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not quarrel with that. All I say is that it has no bearing on the point which the Minister of Transport is answering, namely, whether or not the Ministry of Transport was required, or whether the work could have been better done by the Board of Trade officials?

Major Sir B.FALLE: Is this not giving away Cabinet secrets?

The CHAIRMAN: I am thankful to say they are not in my keeping.

Mr. REMER: Did not the Ministry of Transport take over the Board of Trade officials who were doing this work?

Sir E.GEDDES: Yes, there are to-day, say, 32 members of the staff doing the Board of Trade work of the Ministry of Transport, and that is practically the number which was in the Board of Trade before the War. There is really a very serious financial aspect of guaranteeing the receipts of the railways after the War, because we are now passing through a time of re-construction. We are also passing through a time of extraordinary
disturbance, and the total amount of money income and expenditure of the railways is in the neighbourhood of 500 millions a year. I ask the Committee to appreciate those figures, which are given by the Select Committee in their Report. A large proportion of that is maintenance expenditure. I request the Committee to follow me in what that means in the responsibility of the Government and the responsibility of the taxpayer in checking this expenditure. Any item of betterment has got to come out. If a roof placed over a platform were made of wood and felt and afterwards replaced by steel, there is an element of betterment there, and that is not payable by the taxpayer, but the proportion attributable to the replacement of the wood is payable by the taxpayer. It is the same with the wagons, engines, carriages, and every kind of engineering works. If a larger station be put up and a smaller one pulled down, there is an element of betterment. The same applies to alterations in the rolling stock. I ask the Committee to think what that means, even if you are dealing with the most honourable men you can imagine.
I have nothing but praise for the railway managers as to the way they have acted, but they have a different point of view, and they have not the taxpayers' point of view. Take, for example, the cartage staff. I am going to give the Committee a few instances to show the diversity of the problem with which we have had to deal. We will suppose that a certain company has a considerable cartage staff, and, for some reason or other, that staff is reduced. They empty one stable and, perhaps, that is let for £100 or £1,000. Obviously, that cartage staff was working for and at the expense of the company. But in the control period it was working for and earning revenue for, and being kept by the State. The stable affected is rented, say, for £100 or £1,000. To whom does it belong? Under the agreement with the companies the rents before the period of control were below the line, and did not come into the control. But this is a new rent. This is earning revenue for the company; it comes into the State book, and so the rent of the stable ought to come to the State. You must have, in order to check these matters, someone looking after them from the point of view of the State.
The same thing happened with the reserves. If they were made in the base year of 1913 they are continued now; but if they were increased for some other purpose, they are not debitable to the State. Take a very simple example and one that obviously requires discussion. We have to make sure that these things will not be overlooked. The railway com-panics sent wagons to France. These things are paid on the basis of maintenance of plant for as it existed in 1913. In each railway they have not eliminated those wagons which went to France. The War Office has maintained them, and when they come back they have to be reconditioned, and someone has to see that the maintenance of those wagons is properly dealt with. I will give one other example, but I could go on for a long time with them. Does the Committee realise that on every bottle of champagne or wine sold in a railway establishment, if under price, the loss of profit is the Government's. On this matter I have had a report made on every principal railway of the country, and I have had a varied experience. I have had a representative investigating this matter in the principal hotels. He has just finished his work, and he reports that in 33 per cent. of the hotels the cost of the wines and other charges might well be raised to keep them in line with the cost outside. If these prices were put up to the extent of 5s. a bottle on champagne—[Laughter.]

Captain W.BENN: Is that what the Ministry of Transport does?

Sir E.GEDDES: Yes, that is what we have to do, and that is what Parliament charged us with. I maintain that no business firm, however honourable they thought the other side was, would leave adjudication of questions like that to be done by the other side. You must have someone who is looking at the matter from your side. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Asquith) asks why we did not go on under the highly efficient system existing in his time? We could not ask the railway companies to continue performing those duties. It is not fair to ask them to do it now, because they did it as patriots before; and to ask them to do it now would not be fair either to them or to the taxpayers.
Up to now I have only dealt with small things, and I have been laughed at because I talked about champagne. I will now give two examples of rather larger things. During the War there was a landslip at Folkestone, and the line came down. The railway company put in a claim for £310,000. Is that ordinary maintenance; is it right for the State to pay that, and would it come under the control? Those are questions which have to be answered, and someone has to consider them. There are hundreds of these cases, and you have to have a staff to deal with them. There was a heavy snowstorm, the telegraph wires were blown down, and a claim was put in for £250,000 to make good the lines which had been blown down. Is that a claim which ought to be met? Is that the expenses of ordinary management? We have to decide those things. I give these as the kind of things which come before the Ministry of Transport, and they were never before dealt with systematically. Some of these cases were dealt with, some were not, and we are settling now cases going as far back as 1915 and 1916.
What the right hon. Gentleman suggests is that we should have gone on without a Ministry of Transport, and should have asked the railways to do this work themselves. I say it is unfair to ask them to settle these things between the State and themselves. We have gone on doing this work with a staff which was 35 before the War and 25 during the War, and that is how we have been safeguarding the taxpayers. There are now 32 men doing that work. In addition to that, we had an arrangement whereby two distinguished accountants gave a small portion of their time settling these matter's of difference.
I would now like to run through the principal agreements which exist with the railway companies. I published them in the Command Paper in so far as they exist, but they are very difficult documents to follow, and they are not in the ordinary form of agreements at all. The first thing I did when the Ministry of Transport started its work was to ask for these agreements with the railway companies. These arrangements, apart altogether from the guarantee, are embodied in agreements. The first I will ask the Committee to consider is what is called the
Deferred Maintenance Agreement, of 1916. It provides that where the companies were unable to spend the 1913 quota of maintenance, it should be debited to working expenses in any event, and that the money they do not spend should be put into a reserve fund so that they may expend it at a later date after the War. That was the first arrangement—a quite proper arrangement in every way.
They then said we are finding the money is insufficient on account of increased costs; we want more, therefore. Negotiations took place with the Board of Trade, and it was agreed that they should have 115 per cent. The money which they have put by, and charged to working expenses as a debit to the State now in their hands, amounts to £36,000,000. All that by the terms of the agreement is handed over to them. Shortly afterwards the company said that 115 per cent. was not enough, as prices had further risen, and they must have more. The agreement was accordingly modified, so that the State is to make good to the railways all the work which they would have done had there been no war on the 1913 basis, at the cost at the time the work is done. I want the Committee to realise what that means. This is a 1916 agreement, and the documents are to be found in the Command Paper. Will the Committee realise what this deferred maintenance means? Look at the responsibility that rests on me and my staff, acting on behalf of the taxpayer. Suppose the companies press for rolling stock. What we have to consider is whether rolling stock is so urgently needed that we should buy it now in a very high market, or whether we can possibly get along without it and wait until prices fall? That is one of the considerations we have before us. We have to decide when the work is to be done, and how it is to be charged.
The next agreement to which I wish to refer is that of August, 1916, with regard to interest on capital expenditure. It was agreed that capital expenditure could not be stopped. The capital expended by the companies and approved on behalf of the Government bears interest at 5 per cent. per annum. Until the end of the War came and things settled down, that was a very small item. But since the formation of the Ministry of Transport, we have passed items of expenditure to the amount of £13,000,000. We have
had to look at these from the point of view of the interest of the taxpayer, and also from the engineering and traffic points of view. We have had to ask ourselves whether the expenditure is necessary. There is another point which probably my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley has not noticed, namely, that while the company spend any capital they claim interest for it. What happens if they release capital? Say a steamship is sold or lost; we cannot claim a rebate in respect of that, and there are from two to three millions in the hands of companies for steamships which have been sold, or for lines pulled up.
There is another agreement to which I wish to draw attention. I am sorry if I am wearying the Committee, but I must let the House of Commons know what are these agreements. This is called the Abnormal Wear and Tear Agreement. I am not giving the official titles, I am giving the names by which they are commonly known. Under that agreement it was agreed by the Government in January, 1916, that where abnormal wear and tear could be proved—physical abnormal wear and tear—allowance should be made for it. A company might come to us, and say "owing to circumstances our line or our works have been abnormally used and their physical deterioration is greater than it would have been under the conditions of 1913." It was agreed that that was a fair claim to be considered. The consulting auditors estimated that claim in April, 1919, at £40,000,000, and I will ask the Committee to consider what that means. Will they consider what the investigation meant of physical conditions as they might have been in 1913 and as the conditions of to-day are? We are to find out what would have been the condition had there been no abnormal wear and tear.
There is another claim under that agreement which the companies have told me they are going to press. It has never been admitted, and I do not think it is in the agreement at all. It is what they call a "stitch in time." They say that during the control they have not been able to carry out certain work which they would have carried out had there been no war, and they claim that they are entitled to be allowed for that. There is no reference to that in the agreement, and it has not been admitted;
but that is a matter which will also have to be gone into. Then there is the Stores Agreement. Under that agreement the companies actually became storekeepers to the State-controlled railway. They bought stores for the railway and works, and they added them to the stores, which were issued at the average price of the stores in stock. The agreement was that at the end of the period of control, next autumn, the companies are to be put in the same position with regard to stores as they were in 1913. They can buy at present-day prices, and stock stores to the same value as in 1913. But what are "stores"? Are typewriters included? Does that mean scrap? There is no definition so far as I can see. The agreement may be perfectly right. I am not condemning it, but I want to explain the position to the Committee, and to ask it to realise what my Department will have to do in relation to that. We shall have to find out what stores will have to be replaced. Are we going to buy them now when the markets are high? Somebody must look after the taxpayers' interests. We cannot leave it to the companies. I believe this item has been estimated at £20,000,000. These are the sorts of things with which the Ministry will have to deal. I have gone more fully into them to-day, because I am certain that the Select Committee did not grasp the whole story. I am not sure that this Committee has grasped it, but these are the things with which the Ministry of Transport has got to deal with a view to saving the taxpayers' pocket. Without suggesting anything but the most honourable treatment on the part of the railway companies, I urge that this is one of the subjects with which the Ministry of Transport must deal.

Captain BENN: Were you a railway director at the period when these agreements were entered into?

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not say I have exhausted the list of agreements, but there have been no agreements made since I went to the Ministry of Transport. The right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has, in most unmeasured terms, declared that we are wasting the country's money. I have told the Committee what I am doing. If the country wants its interests safeguarded, if it wants these things watched over, it must find a staff to do it. I can
say here that, whether I am the Minister of Transport or whether anyone else holds that position, it will be necessary to have a larger staff than I have at present if these checks are to be done thoroughly. When I estimated last December, I did not know the exact position. I did not know what claims were coming forward. I knew there was a lot to do, and I was asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that there was no Supplementary Estimate required. Another reason why the Estimate has a bigger margin than it would otherwise have had is that many of the claims had not then come forward. I knew many were coming, but I was not aware of the volume in which they would come. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the devoted officers who slave for all they were worth as they did during the War, but are now doing nothing whatever but "lying on their backs, contemplating the sky," and waiting for something to happen. I think it is only fair to these men that the Committee should know something of what they are doing. I quite admit there are fields for economy which are very great, and which have not yet been explored. If I have not convinced the Committee of the necessity for the Ministry, then it is, I fear, beyond my power to do so.
5.0 P.M.
What else does the Ministry do? We have made a comprehensive review of the rolling stock situation. The companies did not do it collectively. We did; we got programmes from the companies. We found out where were the weak spots. We have gone into the question of the renewal of rolling stock at this time. I decided with my colleagues that it was essential that the country should have rolling stock whatever it cost. It is in these ways that one spends money. We reviewed the whole steel question of the country. There is an enormous increase there, and the wagon capacity has not kept pace with it. We have arranged, with the co-operation of the companies, for the necessary special rolling stock for the steel trade to be built. We have dealt comprehensively with the coal traffic, the fish traffic, the meat traffic, and many others. We have to consider whether these great increases are permanent or temporary. If they be only temporary—the outcome of the War—the country cannot afford
to build a lot of rolling stock which it will not need afterwards. We have been appealed to over and over again by traders, associations of traders, communities and districts, and by the railways to help, and we have helped them. It is to that, in no small measure, that the recovery of the carriage power of this country is due.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: May I ask when the arrangement with the steel trade was made?

Sir E. GEDDES: I did not say that there was an arrangement with the steel trade. What I said was that we had reviewed, after conference with the steel trade, the necessity for increasing the special wagon capacity. After that review, we found that the companies, individually and district by district, were not doing enough. In consequence of that, large orders have been, and are being, placed to meet the increase in the steel traffic. I do not wish to go on item after item, for I have much ground to cover, but I hope I have shown the Committee that there are many directions in which the Ministry of Transport works, and which, I believe, were unsuspected.
Quite naturally, taxpayers and hon. Members of this House ask, "What are you doing to try and get general economies in working?" Again I would ask the Committee to try and visualise the position. Here we have railways of which we have guaranteed the receipts. The word "control" has been one of the bugbears of my recent life. We do not control railways; we pay their guaranteed net receipts, and they spend the money. I wanted to see how I could get the railways collectively, while they were working on a basis which was not comparable with their pre-War basis—because the interchange working, the exchange and flow of traffic, is all altered—how I could get the railways to look at the operating economies that were possible. We have to think of the psychology of the men. You have there a large number of general managers and officers, tired with the War, worried with present control—and I do not wonder at it—bothered with shortages, blamed by every trader for anything that goes wrong. You have to get them to take an interest. They have no dividend to work for. What are they going to work for?
They are getting nothing but blame. I thought this out, and said, "Now, the only way I can get these men—very able, earnest and patriotic men—the only way I can get them to try and improve is to form a basis of comparison for them. They could then see how each is working as compared with the others." And so we got these statistics. I remember that, when I went to the Army in France, an officer said to me, "There are two things the Army in France will not stand. One is politics, arid the other is statistics!" Now I find that politicians do not like statistics; but the statistics are very useful. The Minister of Transport and his officers cannot go round to the railway of my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) or to some other railway, like a sergeant-major, and say, "Do this; do that; run this train to time," and so on. That is not possible. You cannot manage this sort of business by going round worrying; and so we got these figures. I know they are very detailed, but they are such as are kept by every civilised country in the world. The Argentine, Canada, the United States, France, India, Egypt, Brazil, Prussia, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland—they all get figures like this, and they afford a comparison.
As I have said, you have to have time, in a great machine of this kind, or in a new business, to show any improvement, but I notice one thing: The train load figure in this country—that is to say, the average amount of traffic which you carry in your average train—from January to March, went up by 1¼ tons. It does not sound much, but if we could get the average train load figure up to 10 tons, it would mean £1,500,000 a year. That increase of 1¼ tons, from January to March, is due to the only method that lies with any railway manager or any Minister of Transport; that is to say, the method of letting people know how they are, as compared with others in this situation. Before the War there were other means—not so good, I think; but at any rate now this is the only means.
Then I will give another figure. The net ton miles per engine hour—that is to say, the actual number of tons moved one mile in one hour of an engine's time—has gone up by 2 per cent. That 2 per cent., on a very modest estimate of engine time alone—not counting reduction in congestion of lines and many other factors-—is worth £825,000 a year. Those are the sort
of indications which I see that the railways are recovering their old pre-War operative efficiency.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Are those gross increases, or net profit increases?

Sir E. GEDDES: That is an economy in engine time.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Then it is net profit?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly. That, however, is taken only on engines. It is in those ways, by this checking of expenditure, and endeavouring to circulate to the railways what they had no power to get for themselves before—under the power which the Housegavetomein the Ministry of Transport Act—pit is in those ways that things can be done, and you can get economy. In addition to that, the Ministry of Transport has other functions. Parliament has lately placed upon it an investigation into the whole of the tramway charges, and, indeed, into the physical condition of the tramways, as also the whole physical condition and the charges and accounting of the docks; and in many other ways burdens are placed upon us. If that be taken into consideration, I claim, and, as a matter of fact, the Select Committee agreed, that the expenditure is not excessive. The Select Committee has left further provision. The Estimates which we submitted were submitted in December. If the Ministry of Transport had been this ruthless, profligate, wasteful Ministry, it would have already appointed all the officers and men provided in the Estimates. We did not do it. We have had a Vote on Account with an ample margin for all this. Therefore, not only have we not spent the money, and not only has the Select Committee endorsed what we have spent and provided more, but we had the sanction to fill the posts, and we did not fill them. That is what is called "waste."
I should like very briefly, because I have further ground to traverse, to run through what we are doing on the Estimates. Under sub-heads A and E the Select Committee recommended a reduction of £68,900. There, upon reviewing the position of the work, I can make a reduction of £80,000. With regard to sub-head H—Motor-Cars—I think the motor-car pool has been misrepresented. The Ministry of Transport was charged with a motor-car pool to economise for
all Departments. When we took over in December last, we had strict instructions from the Cabinet that expenditure must be cut down. The work was done by 77 cars before we took it over. We estimated what it could be done for, and we did it with 44, and that 44 was reduced to 25. Quite independently of the Select Committee's Report, we can see our way to reducing it still further. It will probably come down to single figures very soon. It may be 15 now, and shortly it will go down still further. Under that head, instead of wasting money, we have been steadily doing what the country and the Government expects us to do, namely, to economise. Instead of a reduction of £30,000, it is quite possible that we may reduce it by £39,000.
The Appropriation-in-Aid naturally comes down, too. The Select Committee omitted to note that there is £34,000 off that. With regard to the Canal Vote Survey, I think there was a mistake about that. The Committee apparently thought that the £100,000 there was to carry out the work, as a result of the investigation by the Committee on Canals presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain). That £100,000 was for technical assistance and cost of investigation. Three months have elapsed, and there has been a delay in setting up the Committee, but it has now commenced its labours, and the Government will either move or accept a reduction of £50,000.

Sir J. REMNANT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Commission on Inland Water Navigation, appointed some ten years ago, could have given the information he seeks from this Committee?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir. I have considered that very carefully, and have consulted my hon. Friend about it. The reason is that costs have completely changed. The capital cost of providing alternative works is much greater. The canal position has been entirely upset by the changes in wages and hours—far more than have the railways.

Sir J. REMNANT: Surely it was not necessary to set up a Committee to find that out?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is a Committee that is sitting for the Ministry of Transport. Then the coastal subsidy is stopped from the end of this month. The provision in the Estimates is for clearing up the traffic that has already passed. As a matter of fact, there will be a saving of £100,000 there. That is my reply to those who have blamed the Department for gross and extravagant waste and squandering. The Press I must leave to themselves. I have placed my case before the House of Commons and the country. The House of Commons is always fair when it understands, and I leave my case in the hands of the House of Commons.
I now pass to railway policy, and again, I fear, I must spend some time upon it. I wish to give to some extent the historical and general facts about the railways. The railways are the backbone of the transport of the country. There is £1,300,000,000 of capital in them. The Act of 1844, passed early in the days of railways, provided, in one of its Clauses, 10 per cent. as a figure for the return on capital which railways might reach. It was looked upon more or less in the light of a minimum. At that time the bank rate was 2½ per cent. That has changed. Railways were a 4 per cent. investment in 1913, and the bank rate is now 7 per cent. That is a very remarkable change over. The speculative character, the possibility of high remuneration, has gone. When the State took possession of the railways, in 1914, they were just about 4 per cent. Since then it is said the State has turned them into a losing concern. I do not think that is a correct statement. So far as I know, and I believe I am right, and I ask to be challenged if I am wrong, the State has given no orders to the railways which have increased their working expenses, except in so far as wages and salaries are concerned.
During the War the railways were practically managed by a committee of general managers. Since the Ministry of Transport Act was passed, with the exception of directions under the powers of that Act in connection with fares and railways, there has been no direction given to the railways at all. Therefore, if wages have not gone up out of proportion to the general level of wages of the country, and if we can
show that that is so, we can fairly say that the present position of the railways, which is not really in dispute, is brought about by economic changes as the result of the War. The wages of the railwaymen were reviewed the other day by a tribunal with an independent chairman of great experience as Chairman of an Industrial Court on Salaries and Wages and four railwaymen, four railway managers and four users of railways, and with one dissentient they came to the conclusion that railwaymen's wages were below the general level of comparable trades. Therefore, they have not been forced up out of proportion to other trades by the Government, and so I think one can fairly claim that the present position of the railways is not the outcome of direct Government control, if that be the word to use, but as the outcome of the general economic position.
As to the future, the present situation is very uncertain. Who can say what the charges, the costs, and the cost of living are going to be in one year or five years? What are reasonable freight charges going to be? You cannot hand back the railways in August next year without doing something. You have got to legislate in some way. Something has got to be done. I am sure it is the wish of the Committee and of the country that the railway shareholder should be treated fairly and reasonably. The railway shareholder has not got a highly speculative investment. There are hundreds of thousands of them. They are small holders of stock usually. They are not big capitalist holdings. To-day the return is less than the Bank rate. They have invested in undertakings of great public utility, and they are entitled to have security for their money. Beyond that, we have the community to consider. The community, as I see it, can say to the railways, "We made a, bargain with you. You built the railways, and we gave you certain rights, certain protection and certain powers, and we impose, certain obligations on you. Owing to the economic results of the War, you wish to alter that. You want increased charging powers. We agree. You cannot go on as you are. You cannot continue, and give a satisfactory service, and the State must have a satisfactory service. We agree we have got to treat you fairly." This is, as I see it, the attitude of the community to the railways.
But we want to be sure of something else. We want to be sure that we are getting the cheapest and the most satisfactory service possible for the money. We want to be sure that all possible economies are being effected. We want to be sure that the charges and the facilities are reasonable. We want to ensure against arbitrary treatment of labour, which simply leads to strikes, and brings the whole economic life of the country to a standstill. We want to ensure that, in present-day conditions, one company will not stand up and say, "We refuse to meet this trade union," and thereby have a strike involving the whole of the railways of the country. Broadly speaking, that seems to me to be the attitude which the community may well take up. In the past the attitude of the community to the railways has frankly not been one of sympathy. They have looked upon the railways as great big capitalist undertakings. They have perhaps forgotten that they get only a small return on their money. They have said, "The more competition the better. If we only have two lines instead of one, they will cut each other's throats, and we shall benefit by it." That may have been sound 30 or 40 years ago, but it cannot be sound to-day. You cannot afford it to-day. It is a luxury you cannot afford. In all my experience I have never, until the other day, had a trader say to me, "Such-and-such set of rates are really too low. The railway is giving too much for the money." That is a very encouraging sign. It shows that we have a community of interest between the traders and the railways. That is the position which they have got to in America.
I do not know whether hon. Members have followed legislation in reference to railways in America. A very distinguished American, writing to a friend here the other day, put it extraordinarily succinctly, and this is what he said: "The United States of America Government made a good beginning in getting under as well as over the railways." That, I think, is what this country has got to do. It has got to get under as well as over the railways. We have got to help them to economise, and to raise capital. We have to give confidence to the investor. Otherwise the lines will die; they will wither, your service will be bad, and the country's economic life will be ruined. In the past we protected the public
against the oppressive railways. Now we have to protect the railways in another way, but if we are going to help the railways in that way we have to protect the public still further. To what organisation shall we revert next August? Some people say our railway system is the best in the world. They say, "There is nothing better. Hand the railways back to the individual private companies; let each of them work as they did before, and put up their rates and their charging powers proportionately, and leave them alone." If the country came to the conclusion that our railways were, and are still, the best; that they were the cheapest, and will still be the cheapest, in the world, there is a great deal to be said for that. Why disturb a good situation? Therefore, I would ask the Committee to follow me a little in the investigations which I have been making. There is no doubt that the railways carried the War traffic magnificently. The recovery of the railways since the War has been remarkable. I think America is carrying more traffic than she did before the War. This country is certainly carrying very much more, and doing very much more work than before the War. No other belligerent can show anything like that. We have done that, in spite of the dislocation of the War, in spite of the eight hours' day, in spite of the fact that the companies had to train new men in skilled trades to take the place of those whose lives were lost in the War.
But let us look further. Let us see how our railways have developed. Let us see whether they have been hampered by legislation. Let us see, as far as we can, what are their operating results compared with other countries. You cannot judge railways by impressions—whether you get a corner seat, or whether you are going to arrive in time. You have to get to the bottom of the problem, and see how they compare in their essential operations with other countries. Compared with European countries, Prussia, France, and America, we have a short haul. Our haul is an average of 56 miles, France 80, and Prussia 73, but I do not think that ought to affect the figures I am giving. Let us see what is the average charge made to the public for a ton of freight traffic moved one mile. It is the only figure I know that you can compare with cost
per ton mile of your freight. We have never had the figure before. We have never been able to compare it, and we have never known it before. At present the average cost of moving a ton a mile in this country is 1.49d.—practically l½d. I have not the post-War costs for any other country. On that basis, which I think is absolutely reliable—it is merely applying to the earnings and the tonnage of last year the same average distance this year—I get an average rate of 929d. That is the average rate of moving a ton a mile. In France it is 66d., in Prussia 68d., and in the United States of America 4d. These are taken from the normal rate of exchange, and not the post-War rate. They are the last rates I have got for any country, but they are all before the War increases. There is one factor which it is reasonable that the Committee should have in mind, and that is that in this country we have an abnormal proportion of coal. That ought to bring our rate a little lower. In spite of that, we are 9 as against France and Prussia 6. Our percentage of coal traffic is 58 as against France and Prussia 37 and 39. That is 38 per cent. higher than the French cost, and practically 38 per cent. above the Prussian cost.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the figures are arrived at? Are these the statistics of the North Eastern Railway since the War, or have they been taken out on the figures that existed before the War in the best way they could?

Sir E. GEDDES: These are the ton-mile figures for every controlled railway in the Kingdom, compiled by the railways on a basis accepted by the railways and sent to the Ministry of Transport. They have been compiled since the beginning of this year. The other figures are the standard official figures of every country.

Mr MARSHALL STEVENS: The right hon. Gentleman might add that the comparison is not very comparable in regard to the terminals of the countries, and that perhaps later on, as the statistics progress, he will be able to give comparable figures.

Sir E. GEDDES: Let us take another point of view. This is a highly developed country. We say this is a densely populated country, and we know that on all sides there is great congestion on our
lines. I thought, and probably every Member thought, that this country would stand very high in the density of its traffic. How do you measure density of traffic? By the number of tons sent over each mile of running track in the year. I do not mean light trains, but the number of tons you get over a mile of track. In this country we are carrying 551,000 tons, on the average, over each mile of running track in the year. Prussia carries 746,000, Germany 725,000, France 439,000, and the United States, where the conditions are different, 1,162,000. There are other very dense countries. Belgium is very dense, and the figures there are high. The figures I have given are the latest figures available for other countries and the present figures here.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This year?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly. They are the figures for this year. Therefore, you have this country doing a very much greater amount of work than it did before, but carrying less over each average mile of running track than many other countries. We may diagnose here one of the causes of high charges. This country has duplicated its track more than others.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman comparing this year's traffic route mileage in England with the pre-War traffic in Prussia?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes. The figures are for this year in this country, and for the last year available in every other case. In this country the duplication of track is 1.8 on every route mile, in Prussia 1.4, in France 1.4, and in America 1.1. So there clearly we have a higher proportion of double track, treble track and quadruple track than these other countries.
Let us take the cost of construction. I am endeavouring to take the Committee with me to investigate whence comes the necessity for these high charges. The cost of construction in this country for the equipment of a railway—and it must be remembered that only half the rolling stock belongs to the railways, half being privately owned—is £54,000 per mile, compared with £31,000 in France, £26,000 in Prussia, and £14,000 in America. There you have two factors which, apart from the cost of operating, makes for the necessity of the high charge. These
figures must give great food for reflection. We must see whether we cannot improve matters. What is the cause?
It is with the object of improving matters that the proposals of the Government are put forward. If the railways could have improved themselves before, they would have done it. The British railway manager is sought the world over. It is not that the railways of this country are badly managed. There must be some other reason for it. The Government believe the railways can be improved. There are two systems which we can adopt. One is national ownership—to purchase the railways on some terms, and to manage and operate them by the State, just as the State runs the Post Office.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not so bad as that.

Sir E. GEDDES: So far as I know, and I have investigated the matter, no country has ever adopted nationalisation for purely theoretical reasons. There always has been some reason other than the pure theory that nationalisation was a good thing, and that the railways should be run by the people for the people. I will tell the Committee what was the reasons in the countries whose circumstances I have had the opportunity of investigating. In Belgium and Switzerland, it was because foreign capital had got hold of the railways, and they wished to get the railways out of their hands. In Italy, they had got hopelessly entangled in bad leases, and to cut out the leases they nationalised the railways. In Japan, it was in order to terminate concessions which were preventing a reduction in fares that they bought out the railway concessionaires, and nationalised the railways. In Australasia and East Prussia, it was in order to provide the railways with proper capital. Private capital would not invest. In Germany, after 1870, Russia, and on certain Indian railways, there were military reasons. In Canada, they did it because two great companies were unable to carry the burden which was sought to be put upon them. There is no such reason in this country.
I believe the experience of other lands will prove—and I believe we are all convinced—that State management, promotion by seniority, and the fact that the State will never pay the market price for the best brains, are handicaps which
you can never get over. It is a fact that no important operating improvement and no invention has ever come out of a State railway. The evidence I have collected and seen all shows that State management is costly, that it lacks initiative, and that it becomes red tape. Another thing which impresses everyone who thinks seriously on the matter was summed up in a report of a Royal Commission in Italy which investigated the question of the nationalisation of railways, and it is: that politics corrupt railway management, and that railway management corrupts politics. I do not believe that in this country, with our national characteristics, and with our constitutional practice, it would be possible for the State to run and manage the railways so well as private ownership. Therefore, the Cabinet, after full consideration, has decided not to recommend national ownership. At the same time, the Cabinet is profundly impressed with the need for enabling the railways to economise in every possible way, to encourage them to economise, and to remove the handicaps under which they are suffering, which are great. I could enumerate the handicaps, and if the Committee wishes me to do so I will do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am running into a very long statement, and, out of consideration for the Committee, I propose to leave that out. The information will be given in another form in the proposals, and I think that will give my hon. Friends sufficient information.

Captain W. BENN: Will this require legislation?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to take up the time of the Committee of Supply in discussing proposed legislation?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have said that the difficulties under which the railways suffer are very great. They have from time to time come to Parliament, and have endeavoured to put themselves in a position to economise. In some cases their measures have been sanctioned, but they have been coupled with such burdens that they could not avail themselves of the economies, and they have done without them. It is in that direction, and with the object of endeavouring to effect these
economies and to enable the railways to effect economies, that the Government has framed its proposals. The proposals are these—

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. This Committee is for the purpose of examining the expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and I ask you, is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to use Committee of Supply to outline legislative proposals?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On a point of Order. Part of the purpose for which the Ministry of Transport was created was to deal with the situation which was left as a result of the control of the railways, and part of the money is employed on the preparation of the proposals which are to be made.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that his proposals will involve legislation, and I put it to you as Chairman of the Committee, that that, is out of order in Committee of Supply.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): It is out of order to discuss proposed legislation in Committee of Supply. The rule is that Supply Day is put down to enable Members of the Committee to have an opportunity of discussing Supply; but the Committee may not wish me to rule very strictly on this occasion, as Members have been looking forward to a full explanation from the Minister of Transport with regard to his Department.

Mr. HOGGE: If your ruling be that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss policy, then every subsequent speaker will be entitled to discuss policy, and therefore the whole discussion to-day might be on policy.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not binding myself as to what the ruling will be in reference to future speeches.

Captain BENN: If the Standing Order be waived in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, will it not be waived in favour of other Members of the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; but the Chair, interpreting the desire of the Committee, may give latitude to a Minister on a special occasion.

Sir F. BANBURY: I submit that it is quite a new doctrine that in Committee of Supply matters which require legisla-
tion can be discussed. But supposing that that is going to be done on this occasion, every other Member of the Committee must have the same facilities as the right hon. Gentleman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the points of Order which have been raised, and that it is not open to him to deal with legislative proposals.

Captain BENN: He said he would.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Any further remarks which the right hon. Gentleman makes must be in accordance with the general practice of Committee of Supply.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that matters of this kind are generally dealt with, provided that they do not go entirely against the recognised rules, in accordance with the general wish of the House. My right hon. Friend said that his proposals would ultimately require legislation. That is obvious, but he is not in any sense outlining a Bill. All he wishes to do is to give the Committee a general outline of the views of the Government as to the way in which control should be dealt with.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: In view of the great importance attaching to the question, and the general desire of the Committee, while I do not wish to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman in giving a general outline of his policy, inasmuch as there must be a discussion on it, perhaps the Leader of the House will give an undertaking that further time at an early date shall be given for the discussion of these matters.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Apart from any objection that might be taken, time is the essence of the matter at this period of the year, and I am afraid I cannot promise that. My right hon. Friend's wish is to meet the general desire of the Committee. I have spoken to him now, and he is quite ready, instead of making his speech—[HON. MEMBERS "Go on!"]—to circulate the proposals of the Government in the form of a White Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—if that will meet the wishes of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Let us have it now.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not like to make any suggestion to the Committee in this matter, but I do feel that there is some point in the contention of those who say that there is only a limited time today in which to discuss the Estimates in Supply, and that there is some point in the criticism as to a great policy being introduced, but not discussed. I do not wish in any way to suggest something which the Committee does not desire, but personally I think that perhaps the best plan would be to circulate the proposals, and, if possible, find some other opportunity of discussing them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) submitted that matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee. Of course, they cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, but what I endeavoured to indicate was that sometimes, for the convenience and advantage of the Committee, latitude is given, with the consent of the Committee, to a Minister to enlarge upon his remarks. But in this case objection is taken, and objection being taken, there is no other course open to me but to rule that matters requiring legislation or matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman justified in indicating the future policy of his Department, in order to show the necessity of the Estimates for his Ministry in undertaking that policy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that what I have just said dealt with that point. Anything involving legislation, or showing the necessity of legislation, would not be in order in Committee of Supply. The ruling is that we cannot now discuss matters involving legislation, or showing the necessity for legislation, as objection has been taken, but that only the administration of the Department can be discussed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps, by general consent of the Committee, an arrangement can be made with the Leader of the House to enable the objection to be withdrawn, and then the discussion could be allowed to proceed. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend
that there are other subjects as well as railways, such as roads and canals, which are concerned in these Estimates, and if my right hon. Friend will give us another day or a half-day in the Autumn Session to discuss these topics, objection might be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman might make a statement now, and this evening could be devoted entirely to railways, leaving the other matters to be dealt with in the Autumn Session.

Sir F. BANBURY: If that is to be done there is only one way of doing it, that is to move to report Progress now, for the Speaker to be sent for; then for the Leader of the House to move the adjournment of the House, and on that motion the Minister can make his statement. But short of that, he cannot break this old rule, which has been in existence for centuries. We are always breaking the rules of the House.

Sir F. FLANNERY: There was another way, according to your ruling, that was that if the objection that had been raised were waived, then the discussion might proceed with the consent of the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I endeavoured at first not to give a definite ruling because of what might be the wish of the Committee, but, the Committee having pressed me to give a ruling, I had to give a ruling, and having given it I must adhere to it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is a difficulty which is felt by the whole Committee and by you. In the circumstances, as there is objection, my right hon. Friend is not clear that he would be justified in taking up time with this, and denying the Committee the opportunity of criticising the Estimates. Therefore I do not think the course suggested is practicable. What we shall do then is to circulate the statement of my right hon. Friend on policy as a White Paper, and consider later on in what form it can be discussed.

Sir E. GEDDES: Then in that case, I shall have nothing further to say at present.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not sure that the suggestion of the Leader of the House that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman be circulated as a White
Paper is the best course, because presumably it will be to-morrow before we can get it.

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible.

Mr. HOGGE: The Leader of the House says that we shall have to wait probably a week before we get the White Paper.

Mr. BONAR LAW: indicated dissent.

Mr. HOGGE: I should have thought that some more expeditious means would be used of letting the Committee and the public know to-morrow what these proposals really are. It is quite true that the ruling which you have given is in strict accordance with the precedent of the Committee, and Members of the Committee ought to realise that, however expectant we might be on this occasion on this particular subject, there are 20 other occasions on which this course could be used for a similar purpose if we gave way on this, and we should never be able to do what we come to do on these occasions, namely, to examine and criticise the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport. Before criticising the Revised Estimates, I may refer to some of the things which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. He divided his speech into three parts. One of these parts was completed. The second ended in collision, and so we have only got the first part of his speech.
I am rather sorry that he took the trouble to deal with the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), because I think that his statement would have been much more lucid on his own particular topic had he resisted the temptation to refer to my right hon. Friend. He complained that he was only a beginner, and that hon. Members were ready to trounce him. He is a fairly lusty beginner, and he has himself in the course of his speech tried to trounce those of us who have criticised him and his Department. hope to show, in spite of the fact that he comes down to the House to-day with Revised Estimates, showing a reduction of £85,000, that his Ministry is still a very extravagant Ministry, and one whose work I and many others think can be carried out with much more efficiency. I would remind my right hon. Friend first, that on the 10th March we discussed the very methods which are dealt with by the Committee on National
Expenditure. Those of us who sit on this side of the House, and criticised the Estimates, then said that they were extravagant, and we divided the House.
6.0 P.M.
The Division then was 165 to 67. That is to say, not only the Minister himself, but the Government of which he formed a part, as recently as 10th March, said to this House that all the money in the Estimates was required, that the Minister could not do without it, and that the criticisms brought forward were unfair criticisms. Now, in the month of June, my right hon. Friend comes down and says, in effect, that he was wrong, and that he was asking for £85,000 too much. That is a habit of the Government, and one with which the Members of the Committee are familiar. We have had instances of it once too often. We had it last night on an Army Vote for the expenditure of money on red cloth for the troops. A few days ago the Government said that they would make that Vote a question of confidence, but last night they receded from that position, and the nation saved money. When my right hon. Friend makes that kind of criticism he should remember his own mistakes. He remembers Slough. According to a speech he made in this House, Slough was to be a pivot and indispensable—

Sir E. GEDDES: . I never had anything to do with Slough. I never have been at Slough, and know nothing about it, except what I have read in the newspapers.

Mr. HOGGE: I will send my right hon. Friend the reference. I can assure him that that statement was made.

Sir E. GEDDES: It may have been made, but not by me.

Major NALL: On a point of Order. Are we in order in discussing Slough now?

The CHAIRMAN: A reference was made by the Minister in his speech, If I am not mistaken. Slough does not appear on these Votes, and I do not think it is, or has been, under the control of the Minister of Transport.

Sir E. GEDDES: In my speech I made no reference to Slough at all. I do not think I have ever made such a reference in my life.

The CHAIRMAN: It is certainly not on this Vote.

Mr. HOGGE: I was not discussing Slough. What I was pointing out was that we had the same kind of thing with regard to Slough; we were induced to support it because of what it was going to do for the country and for transport, and then the Government, in view of criticism, receded from that position and sold what was said to be a valuable asset. That is all I meant to say, and having said it, I need add nothing further. We have to bear in mind that we have made these criticisms, and, in spite of the intervention of the Committee on National Expenditure, this House actually recorded in the Lobby a vote against those of us who called for these economies. I invite the Committee to look at the Estimates and to say whether they are really economies or not. The Minister of Transport makes a great deal of play with the contention that he is saving £85,000. But if the members of the Committee will look at the Supplementary Estimate and the revised Esti-mate, they will see that it is not a real saving at all, and that the £85,000 is saved by not making certain appointments which might have been made, and by a rearrangement of the pool of motorcars. I defy the Minister of Transport or the Parliamentary Secretary to put their fingers on a single item in the old Supplementary Estimates or the revised Estimate where they save a single penny on the proposal they brought before this House. In the Supplementary Estimate they had a sum of £40,000, which was put down for additional appointments during the year, that is, appointments that might be possible. In the revised Estimate they write that down for £1,000, thereby saving £39,000 which has not been spent, and they claim that as half of their saving of this £80,000. In addition to that, they deduct another £26,000 to make up their £80,000.
Look at what they do on the motor-car pool. In the Supplementary Estimate, if you look at the receipts you will find that they show a net loss of £4,500. They revise that on paper, and in their revised figures show a possible profit of £500, so that the loss of £4,500 is turned into a possible profit of £500, and the Ministry take credit for having saved the Nation £5,000. I submit that such a method of trying to show that you have
saved £85,000 when none of it has been spent, and all that the Ministry is doing is not to spend the money, is throwing dust in the eyes of the taxpayer. I should like to have some reply to the criticisms previously made as to the points on which economy could be effected. Let me refer to one or two of them. On 10th March I made a speech in Committee on the Supplementary Estimates. I instanced two examples of a kind of thing that was said then, but of my statement absolutely no notice has been taken. I drew attention to the extravagant salaries being paid to many of these men. Incidentally, did the Committee notice the criticism of the Minister of Transport with regard to that? He said in effect, "We are not extravagant, if you compare us with the outside railways. If you lump our men together you will find that we are paying much less than is paid to men in comparable places in the railways outside." There is all the difference in the world between payments to a number of men whose only duty is to supervise, because the Ministry of Transport does not control, and the payments made to competent men outside on the railways, whose duty it is to control and manage. Obviously, those men are going to be paid much better. The right hon. Gentleman's defence on the point seems puerile. Take the case of the solicitor to the Minister of Transport. The Board of Trade is as big a Government Department as the Ministry of Transport can possibly be. You have your own solicitor in the Board of Trade and his maximum salary is only £1,800. But in this new Ministry of Transport the solicitor's maximum salary is £3,750.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I do not want to interrupt unduly, but if the hon. Member will look at the Estimate he will see that this official is solicitor and secretary and combines both offices.

Mr. HOGGE: I gathered that before, and I was trying to save some time by not quoting my previous speech. Let us take the point in regard to the secretary. The Principal Secretary at the Ministry of Transport has a maximum salary of £1,500, as against the same official in the Board of Trade whose
maximum salary is only £1,000. When we made our criticisms on the Supplementary Estimates we made the constructive suggestions to the Government that here was a method by which they could effect economy. That has not been done. All the various sections of the Ministry are still being run by director-generals with very large salaries, and with all their attachments. I repeat that the only economy which has been effected is the economy in possible appointments. The nation is not being saved a single penny on the machine which has been set up. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Minister and to the numerous statements he made as to what the Ministry involved. He made one strong point with regard to the loss of public money in maintaining receipts to the railway companies for, I think, two years after the termination of the War. Who is responsible for not having that date fixed? Surely the Government could, seeing that they have won the War, have hastened matters in such a way as to fix a date beyond which this money would not be taken from the pockets of the taxpayer. It is curious that anyone should say, "I came into the Ministry and found this and that and the other thing, and it is going to be a great expense to the community." The Minister is a Member of the Government which could have fixed the date and cut the loss.
We had a lot of conundrums put to us with regard to what would happen supposing some cliff at some particular place had fallen, and we were asked whether that should go to maintenance or something else. That kind of question could be answered by any individual who has had any connection with railway work. The answer to the question about the cliff, which fell, I think, at Folkestone, is that every railway in the country would put it down to a maintenance charge. Such questions have to be answered by business men in the railway world every day of their lives, and it is surprising to find a man with the railway experience of the Minister of Transport coming down and trying to make the House believe that these difficulties, which confront every man interested in railways, are the kind of difficulties which make a Ministry of Transport necessary. I think that a Ministry of Transport is not at all neces-
sary. I am one of those who believe that this work could be done by some other Department of State. I also believe that it ought to be done by some other Department of State for the reason that we cannot afford to spend money on any new and costly Department. The Ministry of Transport is a temporary Department. That is quite clear, unless you change the policy of the Government, and we are not allowed to hear what that policy is, except that the Cabinet decided that it was not to be a policy of nationalisation. As to what it is, we will have to possess our souls in patience. As it is a temporary Department, is it worth our while to continue expenditure on this basis. On Wednesday next we are to have a Second Reading Debate on the Mines Regulation Bill. I should imagine that the mining industry is as great as the railway industry, and involves as many interests.

Major MORGAN: They do not think so.

Mr. HOGGE: The Government propose to create a Minister of Mines who is not to be a separate Minister, but an additional Secretary to the Board of Trade with a salary of £1,500 per year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two thousand a year!"] That is still £3,000 less than is paid to the Minister of Transport. What is the result of arrangements of this kind? If you have an expensive Minister at the head of the Department with the large salary and position that runs right through the whole Department and everybody in the Ministry tries to be as big as the Minister. You have in this Department, nine separate Departments with Director-Generals, with one with a salary of £3,750, others with salaries of £3,000, £2,500, £2,000 and so on. You have got heads of Departments in the Ministry of Transport who have larger salaries than some Cabinet Ministers. At a time like this when we are all looking round for methods by which we can save the nation's money, it is the duty of the Government to scrap the whole Ministry of Transport and to do all that is necessary with regard to the railways through the old machinery of the Board of Trade. I am not afraid of the difficulties that have been created by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. The Committee will remember how he stood at the box and put another of his conundrums as to a case where some railway had changed its rent for a particular holding from £100 to £1,000 and
asked should it belong to the railway or to the State. I should have thought that that was a matter which could quite easily be dealt with by a competent auditor. There are plenty of auditors unemployed, and among discharged officers there are a great many professional men of that type looking for work and quite competent to do this kind of thing and who could do it at much less expense than that involved in the settling up of a great Department.
With regard to the quarrel which the Minister of Transport has with my right hon. Friend, the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), he can deal with that himself as it does not interest me. There are a great many things done during the War by men who are inside the Coalition and outside for which it is very difficult to find explanations. I am glad I never supported any Coalition in this House at any time during the War. If anyone hopes by unearthing that kind of thing to divert the attention of the taxpayer from the real position, which is the spending of public money unnecessarily, then they are wrong. I think the Ministry will find, before the discussion is over, that a great many people are of the same opinion as I am, that it is a monstrous thing to try and create new vested interests in a great new Ministry of this kind till you have exhausted all the other methods of dealing with the question which lie at your hand, and which if not strong enough could be buttressed from outside to carry over the time till the railways have resumed the management of their own affairs or till the Government are able to impose some new system on the country.

Colonel GRETTON: As one of the Members of the Select Committee on National Expenditure I desire to make a few remarks. The terms of reference to the Select Committee laid it down that the Committee was to examine current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament and to report as to what, if any, economies in the execution of the policy decided by the Government might be effected therein. The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), protested against the restriction confining the investigation in conformity with the policy of the Government, and it was suggested that the Committee should have authority to deal with policy. Under this restriction we endeavoured to ascertain what the Ministry
of Transport was actually spending on salaries and other expenses in conformity with the policy laid down. The concluding paragraph of the Report states that the Ministry of Transport Act was conceived on a grandiose scale and that the Ministry had been constructed accordingly, and that Parliament was responsible and must be responsible for the policy pursued by the Ministry.
In regard to the details, I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact referred to by the last speaker, that the revised estimate does not in fact reduce the staff which was set down in the original estimate of the Department. It is similar to that which was originally proposed until we come to the staff on general purposes, where there is a deduction, and further on there is a further deduction of £26,000 for appointments not made during the current year. If the Committee pass the Estimates in the present form they will empower the Ministry to make all those appointments at the salaries set down, and if the Ministry wishes to make them they can go to the Treasury and say that they have the authority of Parliament to do so at the salaries stated, and that the Treasury must find the money in a Supplementary Estimate. As a matter of fact, the Select Committee on National Expenditure made definite recommendations that certain Departments should be reduced by definite sums, but that has not been done. The Committee in dealing with these matters is in a position of very great difficulty. You have to spend an interminable time in going into the details of every Department, and all you can do is to form an opinion as to whether the work done to carry out the policy of the Government was extravagant in the circumstances. Recommendations in some cases were made for reduction. There is one sort of expenditure which we did in fact in the Report approve of, and that is the expenditure for the checking of the accounts in which Government and public money is involved. We recommended that the expenditure should not be withheld for that. It was pointed out in the evidence given to us by the Department on this subject that the accounts were so numerous that it would be impossible for the Ministry to undertake a detailed audit of every item, and that what had to be done was to make a general examination
of the accounts and the items could be adjusted.
I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if they think the Ministry of Transport is going too far and doing more than it was intended it should do, now is the time to act, on these Estimates, to reduce the staff of those Departments which are not connected with finance. That is a matter of policy in regard to which the Select Committee was not in a position to make any recommendations owing to its terms of reference. It is, at any rate, open to question whether some of these Departments are not over-manned and over-expensively staffed, considering the kind of work they have to do. I do not wish in any way to attack the Ministry of Transport. Parliament is responsible for setting it up and for the legal powers which are set forth in the Act, but it is undoubtedly open to investigation and, I think, serious criticism as to the dealings of the Ministry with the railway companies. The Minister claims that the Ministry does not control or manage the railways, but there is undoubtedly a good deal of interference going on with the working of the railways. There is a good deal done without, apparently, the assumption of responsibility in the way of interviewing managers and their officials and negotiating for various things to be done, and that kind of interference is apt to have a most deleterious effect on the working of a business machine, and if a management is constantly being interfered with and its efforts are modified by outsiders, the results are not likely to be nearly so good as they would otherwise be.
I would like to call attention to another matter of vital importance. In the Traffic Department of the Ministry there has been an attempt made to deal with docks. We shall all agree that, whatever the attempt has been, it has been singularly unsuccessful, and the congestion of the docks at the ports has remained one of the great factors which have increased the difficulties of carrying on the trade of this country. The ports are now doing probably something less than two-thirds of what they might do if the position were different, and the question undoubtedly will arise whether the ports will not have to be handled either through the Ministry of Transport or by their owners and railway companies combined. I would
like to make a few remarks on the Vote for new undertakings. The evidence which the Committee got from the Development Department of the Ministry was that it had been concerned mainly in turning down schemes of development, which seems an exceedingly wise thing to do under the present circumstances of the Exchequer. I suggest for the consideration of the Committee that, under our present financial stress, £1,000,000 is too large a sum to be placed at the discretion of the Ministry for spending on schemes which are not specified, and that a very much smaller sum—I would suggest £250,000—would be ample for this purpose.
As regards roads, the position apparently is rather unsettled. There is a large Department in the Ministry dealing with roads, and apparently when the full scheme of taxation which is contemplated is in operation, a sum of about £8,000,000 will be spent in the maintenance and development of the roads of this country. Such a sum requires careful handling and competent management. I think the Roads Department is being made on a quite large enough scale, and it was the opinion of the Committee that that sum was a very large sum to spend. I think too great a load has been put upon the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport. He has been too confident in taking up that load and in trying to do too much at once, and I confess I think it would have been better in these days of stress and of very necessary economy that less should be undertaken and well done, and that the staff of the Ministry should be kept within reasonable limits, and the expenditure of the Ministry within the bounds of economy and efficiency. A large staff leads to large expenditure, and on every ground of economy it is desirable that any extravagance in conception or over-sanguine efforts to undertake vast schemes and great undertakings should be checked, at any rate, until we are in a sounder financial position. So far as the audit of accounts is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has made some complaints about the Committee on that point, but I think the Committee had some experience of business before it went into these questions, and that it did not require a lecture from the right hon. Gentleman on business methods.

Sir E. GEDDES: I never suggested for a moment that the Committee required a lecture or had not fully and thoroughly grasped everything that was brought to their notice, but the agreements which I brought to this Committee's notice were not brought to the notice of the Select Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not, unfortunately, able to be present when I gave my evidence, which was the principal evidence given. I did not go into these agreements, because I did not think it was necessary, but never for a moment did I suggest that the Committee were not fully able to appreciate everything put before them.

Colonel GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks to-day which gave me that impression, but I do not wish in any way to do him any injustice, and I certainly withdraw anything I have said to which he might take exception. With regard to the agreements, they are perhaps difficult to understand, but the main agreement is the key to the whole business, and all the rest are subordinate.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to a Notice of Motion on the Paper to reduce the Vote, but I was not clear whether he desired to move it or not.

Colonel GRETTON: I do not move it.

Mr. ASQUITH: I had not intended to take any active part in this discussion, and I do not think I should have done so but for one or two references made in a spirit of caustic good-humour by the Minister to some utterances of mine of which he seemed to think he had a right to complain. I daresay the reports which he received were, as they generally are in these days, of an abbreviated and condensed character, and possibly some qualifying phrases and expressions which I used may not have crept into them, but substantially they correctly represent what I said and thought, and still think. Let me say at once that any suggestion that the officials of the Ministry, from the right hon. Gentleman downwards, were wasting their time in indulging in idle contemplation was far from my thoughts. You can do a great deal of good work lying on your back, shutting your eyes, and every now and again opening them to the fresh air and light of heaven, ruminating over problems, settling policies,
and determining the future, so far as you can, both of your office and of the country. I have no doubt some part, at any rate, of my right hon. Friend's time is profitably employed in those sequestered and not altogether academic occupations, and I am the last person to complain of that. I can only account for this long and elaborate list of highly salaried officials upon the assumption that it is considered necessary for this task of development and construction. But I want to come to the actual point of importance. What is the origin of the whole of this matter of the Ministry of Transport, and all its personnel and all its expense? It had its origin in a very simple fact, that early in the War it was found necessary for the Government to take control of the railways, and an Agreement was then entered into—I think myself not only a prudent but a necessary Agreement—the substance of which was that the Government guaranteed the railways the previous dividends, and promised to return the railways at the expiration of the War in a status quo ante, and that in return the State was entitled to use, and had power to use, the railways for the transport of troops, munitions, and, indeed, for all other purposes which the exigencies of the War involved. That, I think, was the substance of the Agreement—a very simple one. I do not think it presented any ambiguity, and, so far as I know, in carrying it out it did not require the addition of a single person to the staff of the Board of Trade. Later in the War—I think in the year 1916—my right hon. Friend, who was then President of the Board of Trade, with the consent of all his colleagues, extended the duration of that Agreement to a term of two years after the expiration of the War, and I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend opposite: it was a pity that "termination" was not sooner defined. You could not define it in 1916, and I do not think anyone will doubt that that was a wise and prudent step also. You could not with a clean-cut, the moment hostilities were over, return to a state of things which prevailed in time of peace.
The right hon. Gentleman, by way of endeavouring to prove the necessity of his Department and the somewhat complicated and extended staff, has read to the House a summary, at any rate, of a number of other auxiliary and ancillary
agreements. To my mind, they do not present any difficulty at all. They follow the main provisions of the original agreement. I do not think there has been any trouble about their interpretation. The railway companies loyally accepted them, and the State on its part loyally accepted them, and so far as I know, there was never any friction of any sort or kind. The right hon. Gentleman referred incidentally to an agreement which he said was entered into by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Runciman, with regard to the Underground railways. I never knew of it. It is obvious there are none of us here able to accept or refute the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion. That was the situation. I have said outside this House, and I repeat it here, after having had the opportunity only to-day of talking the whole matter over with a man who knows more than anybody else about the actual conditions at that time—I mean Mr. Runciman—that through the whole of this process—I agree at first sight it is a difficult one, and certainly a very responsible and delicate process—the supersession, for the time being, of the railway companies in the absolute and uncontrolled conduct of their undertakings. would have been perfectly adequate from the point of view of machinery, if the matter had been entrusted in the first instance to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, which—and I speak with as long a knowledge and experience of this as anyone in the House—is one of the most competent Departments I have ever known. I think every railway man here would agree with me as to that. I will not mention names, but it has had the advantage of being presided over—I am not speaking of the transient political head of the Department—by some of the ablest members of the Civil Service. I believe that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade was thoroughly capable of dealing with all these matters. The right hon. Gentleman said there were only 35 clerks.

Sir E. GEDDES: A total staff of 35.

Mr. ASQUITH: It was reduced during the course of the War to 25.

Sir E. GEDDES: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that staff was presumably, employed fully on other matters before the railways were taken over.

Mr. ASQUITH: I think there was a case for increasing the staff, because of these additional duties thrown upon them, and that could easily be done. But it really all comes to this. The whole thing worked, as my right hon. Friend well knows, under the operation and supervision of a committee of railway managers, without friction or difficulty from first to last, and practically the only new duty which was cast upon the Government Department responsible for it was the duty of audit. I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, if he will allow me to say so, in a most admirable and practical speech, said that the railway companies have a most complete and well-tried system of audit of their own. It is not as if you are dealing with accounts of new concerns starting for the first time in business. These are companies which for years have employed persons much more skilled than any Government Department—and I say that without any disparagement to the Civil Service—in this expert railway audit work. Their figures are accepted both by shareholders and creditors, and I believe in 99 cases out of 100 there would be no necessity for a State Department to question, or even canvas the audit which the railway companies themselves make.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the interests of the railway companies are antagonistic to the country in regard to matters of this kind?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am quite aware of that, and that is the reason why I said the Board of Trade ought to have an Audit Department of its own. As I say, as regards the vast matters which come up for review, the Board of Trade might have appointed competent auditors of their own, and I believe the area of possible difference and dispute, or even criticism, would be narrowed to something very small. I cannot help thinking that an enlargement of the staff of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, and the invocation of competent auditors to supervise the audit of the railway companies, would have adequately met the necessities of the case. But what have we got here? A Select Committee has made a very admirable report, after having gone very carefully into the matter. I have never said, and I hope I shall not be suposed to say or to think, that the Ministry of Transport
is not performing, and has not performed, the duties transferred to it with efficiency. I am sure it has. But when I look at, as I am sure the Committee has looked at and studied, page 3 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and when I read in one column "Rank" and in the next column "Salary" of the officials we are now employing in this Department, I am absolutely unsatisfied that there is any kind of necessity for this enormous expenditure. There are 30 officials whose combined salaries amount to £54,000. First of all, you have a duplication—a very curious thing in such cases—of the offices of Secretary and Solicitor. The holder gets £3,750 a year, plus £500 special allowance, and, in order that he may do the duty of Solicitor as distinct from Secretary, he has two assistants, each of whom gets £1,200 a year. Then you have got a Director-General, but of what he is Director-General does not appear. He gets £3,000, and a Deputy-Director-General gets £2,500. Six lines lower down another Director-General gets £2,070, and another two lines down a Director-General gets £2,500. hree lines further down you have another Director-General getting £2,500. Six lines lower there is a Director-General with £3,000. I have not yet exhausted them, because when I get to the third line from the bottom there is another Director-General who gets £3,100. What does it all mean? There is no explanation whatever of their functions, actual, prospective, or potential. I suspect they are mostly prospective or potential. Is there any Department of the State—I speak as an old Minister well acquainted with the Civil Service—which is manned like that, or which has ever been manned like that? We have had no justification whatever offered us in the course of this Debate for the creation, duplication, and multiplication of officials, the great majority of whom, as it appears from the Vote, are not Civil Servants at all. They are people imported from outside, experts or business men-I do not care what you call them, but they are not Civil Servants at all.
That brings me to a point which is really of more general importance than the particular expenditure of this Ministry. I took part lately, at the invitation of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer—and I was very glad to take part—in an inquiry held in regard to the salaries of the leading members of the Civil Service. These salaries, I think everybody will agree, are quite inadequate, in view of the existing conditions, of prices, and other matters—wholly inadequate. I have always thought they were inadequate. Remember the responsibilities of these men. They have to discharge duties of a highly confidential character. Remember the infinite possibilities—if they are so-minded—of abuse, and the great demand for men of their character and ability in the business world. I do not believe there is any service in the world which, in proportion to its duties, possibilities, and opportunities—if they were selfish enough to seek other opportunities elsewhere—which is so ill-remunerated as our Civil Service. Just look at this list in my hand. Before the War, the highest paid Civil Servant, the head of the Civil Service, the Secretary to the Treasury, got £2,500 a year. That was the utmost to which any Civil servant could aspire. What can the effect on the Civil Service itself be, of a Department recruited from men who are not Civil servants, who have never passed through the test of examination, the process of selection and promotion, as the higher parts of the Civil Service have done? These are men imported from outside, no doubt capable and competent in their way, who are getting, as Directors-General, salaries of £3,000 a year. There is one who is not called a Director-General, but is Chairman of the Rates Advisory Committee, who gets £5,000 a year, a salary wholly unknown in the Civil Service. These Directors-General get £3,000 and £2,500 a year. I say, from the point of view of the Civil Service, this is a disastrous experiment.
The House and the Committee, I hope, will extend its view in dealing with this matter beyond the scope of this particular Department, and have regard to the interests of the Civil Service as a whole. I still say, to set up, as you are doing in these Estimates, a new Department, which has taken over from the Board of Trade duties which were thoroughly well performed, and with a slight addition to the staff of the Board of Trade could have been equally well performed—even with the additional duties cast upon them—for
the work of contemplative construction, in which the best part of the energies of these eminent experts seem to be absorbed, will create a precedent of the worst possible kind in the interests of the public service. From that point of view, and upon that ground, quite as much as upon the particular merits or demerits of this particular Department, I ask the Committee to indicate its sense of disapproval.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) began with the skill and good humour which characterises him by explaining what he meant in saying that my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Geddes) and the other heads of the Departments were lying on their backs. He is quite right. Contemplation is as useful almost, if not quite, to the advance of civilisation as action. I think that is admitted. But I will say this, with some knowledge of how these arrangements were made, that if that had been the particular task of the Minister who was wanted by the Government, my right hon. Friend would not have been the individual who would have been chosen for the purpose. I do not mean that my right hon. Friend is not as able to think as most of us. I do mean that he was chosen for his post by the Government because there was a definite work to be done, and because we judged from his past experience that he was capable of doing that work. My right hon. Friend's whole speech, or the latter part of it, was directed, not against the Estimates, but against the Ministry itself. That is exactly the point made over and over again in the House when my right hon. Friend was delivering his speech, explaining the working of his Department, and what it has done since it was instituted. I read the "Times" report of my right hon. Friend's speech to which my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, referred. Like him, I have had some experience of making platform speeches, sometimes without giving as much time to them as one would like to do if one had the opportunity. When I read that speech, I admired the phraseology, and came to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend had either been given a brief by somebody who had not studied his subject, or had read a leader in a particular newspaper in anticipation of that speech. Unless my right
hon. Friend is prepared absolutely to deny it, I really suspect that he has given more examination to the subject since the speech of my right hon. Friend was delivered this afternoon than ever before.
We have all listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Geddes). The case which he has put, it seems to me—and I am bound to say so—and I did not know what speech my right hon. Friend was going to deliver—an over-whelming justification for the appointment of these men at these salaries. If my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) thinks that all that is to be done away with by talking about the disadvantage of starting this particular system in the Civil Service, and the effect it will have upon other Departments, I am sure he is mistaken. We are dealing here, and the Committee must realise it, with an absolutely unique situation. The arrangements which were made with regard to the railways during the War have left the British taxpayer in this position: that he is the person on whom the burden will fall for the whole running of the railways. The idea expressed by my right hon. Friend that the ordinary Civil Servant, however able, can deal with a business problem like that, with justice to the taxpayer, is an idea that is not entertained by any business man. We have evidence of it. My right hon. Friend in the course of my earlier speech interrupted me to say that I, too, was responsible for the agreement made by Mr. Runciman. I never for a moment denied it. I am not prepared to blame Mr. Runciman for that agreement. I should like to know more about it before I blame him in any way. But I do say this, that the simple fact—if it is a fact—though there is hardly room for doubt, I think—the simple fact that the agreement made then should be such that the railway company with which it was made was willing itself to cancel the contract under which the State had paid over £1,000,000, is the best possible proof that the ordinary Civil Servants at the Board of Trade were utterly incapable of dealing with the situation, and, to put it right, we must have men of similar training to the men who made the bargain on behalf of the railways.
The list of Directors-Generals and other officials of high salaries was gone through by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he
did not notice—perhaps he did not know—that there is this distinction between them and other members of the Civil Service, that though they have high salaries, they do not enjoy the privileges of the ordinary civil servant. Their appointments are in most cases temporary, and they get no pensions. But that is not the point. Does my right hon. Friend suggest that all this work of examination of an income and expenditure of something like £500,000,000 a year, in a considerable part of which there is doubt as to what should fall on the State and what should fall on the railway companies—does he put forward the idea that that can be dealt with except by the same type of men who are bargaining on the other side? That is an idea which seems to me to be utterly absurd. It is not a question of trained officers. It is a question of having engineers, and the same type of men as those who advise the railway managers, if the interests of the State are to be safeguarded in the same way as the interests of the railways. I do not blame the previous Government for the reasons I have given, but is it not obvious that the State would have been saved an immense sum of money if the Board of Trade, at the time these agreements were made, and while they were working them, had had men at their disposal of the same type as those who were making the agreements with the railways, and those who are in the Ministry of Transport now? No one else can do it. My right hon. Friend says there are far too many of these high salaries. I do not know whether he has had time to read the whole of the Committee's Report. I have read it. It is a very careful examination, and, on the whole, I do not think it was an unfair examination. The Committee went into every one of these Departments, and in no single case, to the best of my recollection, did they say that they either had too many men of that type, or that they were too highly paid. On the contrary the Committee pointed out, as is obvious
that trained expert directors of departments and technical experts are necessary for the work…and must necessarily be recruited outside the Civil Service at salaries reasonably commensurate with those which they could command in other than Government employment.
Is not that obvious. Is that not common sense, if you are to get men capable of
doing this work? Compare them with the men whom my right hon. Friend had in mind, men like Sir Francis Hopwood and Sir Llewellyn Smith, head of the Board of Trade, men whose ability, it is probable, and more than probable, is greater than that of these men who are getting these high salaries. To suppose that these civil servants are able to do the kind of work required is an absurdity. My right hon. Friend, for instance, and some of my colleagues on this Bench have, I think, quite as much ability—I am trying to put it without exaggeration—as any one of these highly-paid officials. But is there any Member of this House who would entrust that work to anyone with the experience of my right hon. Friend opposite, or any other Minister? Of course not! You have to have not only the ability, but the training. I say that. I can imagine no action, and this seems to me to be common sense, which would be more ridiculous than when you are superintending the expenditure of this vast sum of money, to say, because you are starting a new precedent in the Civil Service, therefore you will not pay the salaries which are necessary to get the work done in the best possible way. That is the worst kind of service to the State. I am not going into details in this matter, but the Committee has got to remember that we have not only this great work of saving the State money, but undoubtedly the expenditure will be more than paid by that work. It is quite true that it was not merely to take over this work that this Department was set up. It was set up with a view of improving the whole transport service of this country, and in this way the country will be benefited. We may be asked where is the proof of what is being done from that point of view, and I think that is a legitimate question. I think my right hon. Friend gave an indication of that. You cannot expect results from any business like this to come immediately you set up the business, but, from the information which has been put before the Government, I know that various Departments have schemes of transport which they wish to recommend to the Government of the country. In the old days these schemes would have been taken up by each Department and examined by them. Already this Ministry is employing these highly trained men to examine one of these pro-
posals from the point of view both of cost, practicability and usefulness, and already they have saved considerable sums of money by using this staff in order to get these schemes done at the least possible rate.
My right hon. Friend, in introducing the proposals of the Government and the Government policy, gave an outline of the efforts made by the Ministry to centralise improvements and to provide some means of letting other railway companies know what is being done by its neighbours, and making pooling arrangements in every possible way, so as to make the best use of the transport of the country. Under the old system—there are many railway directors here who would not deny this—the jealousy between railways was so great that foolish as I think the policy was, the general idea was not so much to create new traffic as to secure from another railway the traffic which they have already got. Surely we are trying by some central examination and advice to get our railway system put on the best possible lines. I know perfectly well the feeling of jealousy which was shown in regard to the Ministry of Transport Bill in reference to a Department like this, which interferes with many other Departments and which does work which many people think could be done just as well without the Ministry of Transport. I know that the House of Commons by a big majority did think that this was a change worth making, and I think anyone who reads the Report of this Committee will recognise that so far there is nothing in the work of the Ministry which justifies the House of Commons in changing the opinion expressed when the Bill was passed.

Mr. REMER: I do not think any Minister of this or any other Government has received in this House more considerate or fair treatment than the Minister of Transport. He made a big point this afternoon about the Act being on the Statute Book which gave him the power we are complaining about to-day. I do not wish to labour this point, but I think it will be universally agreed that that Bill was very materially altered before it was put on the Statute Book. There is one point to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the Committee. We have heard something said about an Estimate of £250,000, but in the
Estimate which came into my hands the figure is £339,571. Therefore I cannot understand what the right hon. Gentleman refers to when he mentions £250,000. It seems to me that the defence of the Minister this afternoon has been more one of attacking somebody else instead of defending his own action. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to all sorts of offences which were committed before the Ministry of Transport came into existence, and it is not fair to come here this afternoon with a defence of that kind, which is simply attacking Ministers in other Governments, when he should have been defending his own position. I do think any of the items such as the rents of the stables, the fall of the cliffs at Folkestone, and the effects of the snowstorms are matters which could have been dealt with by a much smaller staff than he has at the present moment. Even if those items to which he has referred are matters which involve the employment of this staff, obviously they are quite of a temporary nature.
It does seem to me that the Minister in dealing with his Department has not been going into the matter with the idea of what he can cut down, but with no idea of saving money at all. I think every business man who looks into this list will agree that it is an appalling thing to be placed before Members of this House. I do not think that the amount which is being complained of is confined to the £70,000 or the £80,000 referred to by the Select Committee. What we are dealing with is the high policy of the Government which is causing this expenditure, and I am convinced, after some considerable experience of the working of railways since the War, that the whole policy is a mistaken one. I spoke against the Second Reading of the Transport Bill and I opposed it several times in Committee, and I have not seen any reason since to change my mind about that particular Bill. I believe it contains a vainglorious scheme. It wanted to be more glorious than it turned out to be on the Statute Book. It may be true that our system of transport requires reforming, but I submit that this is not the time and this is not the way to do it. I would like to make an analogy of what must come into the mind of every business man in his business career. Every business man is ambitious that he should keep his work up to the full efficiency and keep his methods up-to-date, and
instal every kind of labour-saving machinery, but there comes a time in every business man's career when he finds himself unable either through want of capital, or through being unable to secure an overdraft from the bank, when he has to wait until the time comes when he is able to carry those reforms through. From a national point of view, we are short of money. We cannot secure the money to fund our Floating Debt, and, therefore, I think this expense should not be incurred at the present time. We cannot afford these reforms, and, however beneficial they may seem, the times are not favourable for carrying them out.
There is one point in the Select Committee's Report to which I particularly desire to call the attention of the Committee. It is stated there that there is not going to be any cost to the nation for the Transport Ministry. I presume the meaning of that is that the railway rates are going to be raised in order to cover the cost of transport. That is only another way of the nation paying for that transport. They have to pay either in the form of taxation or higher railway fares, and I do not think it matters which.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the hon. Member read the passage to which he is referring?

Mr. REMER: I have not the passage before me, but it is that which deals with the cost of the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. NEAL: It is not the cost of the Ministry of Transport that is to be handed over, it is an effort to make the railway transport self-supporting.

Mr. REMER: Whichever it is, it is the same thing. Such a policy is ludicrous and absurd, and it is only another form of taxation. It is a plausible thing to say, as has been said by the Minister on other occasions, that we are going to do away with competitive trading. Personally, I believe in competitive trading, I believe if we have two routes to the same town we shall get a better service. You have an example of this in the journey from Liverpool to London, which is now taking 4½ hours, and it used to be done in 3½ hours, and that is a fair example that the general railway service now is much slower than when there was competition between the railways. The same thing applies to goods. It was a well-known fact in the time I am referring
to, that goods could be lifted on any day and at any time in unlimited quantities. Now heaven only knows when you can get your goods away. There is no doubt that the price of commodities is higher in almost every direction by the fact that goods are being delayed at ports and sidings, and are not being dealt with as promptly as they should be. I am quite sure competition makes for efficiency as nothing else can do.
This Ministry is a useless and expensive Ministry. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles that its work could have been easily covered by an extension of the Board of Trade. It is a very usual excuse which comes from the Minister of Transport that the cause of delays on the railways and the cause of inefficiency is the War, and that the rest of the world are even worse off in those matters than we are. I do not think any comparison of our railways with those in the rest of Europe is fair. Our railways have, contrasted with other European railways, not suffered any dislocation; in comparison with them we have only suffered slight inconvenience. Their railways have been disturbed, blown up, and destroyed, and therefore any such comparison is most unfair. I have taken the trouble to make a good many inquiries at railway sidings. I have asked shunters what is the cause of the chaos on the road, and they tell me it is the needless interference of the Ministry and the endless forms of instruction—many of which are quite unworkable. They also tell me that if they did not wink every moment of the day at the ignoring of these needless and useless instructions, they would not get any work done. Until this useless Ministry clears out, and until we get rid of the demoralising influences of this new bureaucracy, we shall have neither order nor efficiency on our railways.

Sir F. FLANNERY: The Committee listened with infinite joy to the fighting speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who stuck to his guns, and maintained his position as well as he could, and still said of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that
He lay beneath the moon,
He basked beneath the sun,
He led a life of going to do
And died with nothing done.
That is a quotation which no doubt my right hon. Friend will recognise. In applying such a description to the present occupant of the office of Minister of Transport the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley made a very serious mistake, if I may venture to say so, especially in his allegations against the Ministry and in his proposal for an alternative arrangement. He suggested—and I confess I was surprised that he did so—that the accountants of the railway companies were men of such experience and skill that the country should rely upon them for all the necessary professional services required and performed by the Ministry of Transport. Is it not the very essence of all business relations that each interest shall be separately represented by professional skill? There is no allegation of dishonesty, no allegation of corruption, when two accountants or two professional men of any kind are brought vis-a-vis as representatives to discuss and settle the details of the separate interests they represent. We have been told by the Minister of Transport, what we know to be the case, that there are differences of opinion between the country as represented by the Ministry and the railway companies, differences as to percentages upon deferred repairs, amounting to £36,000,000 with interest accruing, differences as to the "stitch in time" in regard to which the railways are claiming for injury done to them by not being able to make necessary repairs at the proper time and supplementary damage which has arisen to their plant in consequence; and differences on many other points of technical detail, involving many millions of money. Yet we have the Leader of the Opposition seriously suggesting to this Committee that the accountants of the railway companies which make these enormous claims, that are disputed, should be the sole persons to settle the details of the disputed items.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was here when my right hon. Friend was speaking, and he said directly the contrary to what my hon Friend suggests. Inasmuch as he repeated it, I cannot understand my hon. Friend saying what he does. My right hon. Friend said distinctly this—that he did approve of a super-audit emanating from the Board of Trade to check, as far as necessary, the audits carried through by these experienced auditors.

Sir F. FANNERY: I am in the recollection of the Committee, and I shall be quite content to abide by a comparison of what appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I repeat that the suggestion of the Member for Paisley was that the country should be contented with the audit of the companies. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] At any rate, that is what I understood, and I am in the recollection of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman went on to make comparisons as he ran down the list of officials, and he spoke in particular of the salary of £3,750 to be paid to the Secretary and Solicitor to the Department. He suggested that that was an instance of very great extravagance. After all, the Solicitor to the Department has to compete with the supply and demand for similar services outside. I happen to know that a comparison between these officials in the offices of a single railway company would show that the salary to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is a very moderate and a very economical one. First of all, the offices of Solicitor and Secretary are combined in the Department. Take any of the great railway companies—take the London and North-Western, for instance. Do the Committee know what salaries are paid by that Company to the separate holders of these two offices—to the Secretary on one side and to the Solicitor on the other? I venture to say—I do not wish to go into details of figures—that the combined salaries of these two officials under the North-Western Company—a single Company be it remembered—are over £5,000 a year, and yet this Ministry, which is to deal with the whole of the railway companies by way of administration, is paying for the services combined in one man only £3,750! If that comparison is accurate, as I believe it is, then the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this is an instance of lack of economy—that it is an instance of extravagance, is not well founded from the point of view of what is done by railway companies outside.
Whatever may be the view of the right hon. Gentleman for Paisley upon the question of economy and extravagance and the necessity for the continuance of this Ministry, these views are not shared by the Select Committee appointed by this House for the special purpose of examining into this matter. I hold in
my hands a document which I am afraid not every Member of this Parliament has read. It is highly technical. I do not intend to weary the Committee with any-lengthened extracts from it, but I do desire to read one or two quotations bearing on the subject before the Committee. First of all, may I say that a very careful perusal of this Report has led me to the conclusion that it is a most careful, most highly-skilled, most unbiassed, and most impartial Report. It has been thought out most carefully, and it is based on evidence apparently taken before the Committee at great length. I do not think there ever was presented to this House a Report which more succinctly and more definitely went into the questions at issue. Let me call the attention of this Committee to one or two extracts. The Report says:
The operations of the railways include the ownership and management of approximately half of the dock area of the United Kingdom, and a considerable number of steamers upon different routes, canals, light railways, road transport and hotels. It is impossible that the present staff of the Ministry should undertake a close and independent audit of the whole of the accounts of all the railway companies.
That was the point which I had in my mind when I referred to the wide extent of the operations of the Ministry. There is the statement of this Select Committee that it is impossible for the accountants to undertake audits which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley desires to put upon them. Then the Committee go on to say:
In certain cases the appointments are held temporarily by gentlemen at considerable financial loss to themselves, on their pre-war income.
At considerable financial loss to themselves on their pre-War incomes! Is there any official, be it the Director of Public Prosecutions or otherwise, who will take up this question and prosecute. my right hon. Friends for profiteering, because here there is a direct case of profiteering by bringing in officials at a loss to themselves in comparison with their pre-War incomes? The Select Committee goes on to say:
A system of dock statistics has been prepared to show the traffic of the various ports, the delays of ships, delays in handling and any other points of vital importance to the prompt and economical handling of the dock traffic.
That is a kind of special duty, involving close attention, which my right hon.
Friend did not mention in the course of his speech. Here is the very essence of the Report of Committee. They say:
The Committee, therefore, cannot recommend any curtailment of the financial staff necessary to protect the Exchequer.
That is a very definite statement, which, to my mind, goes to the root of the whole question that is before this Committee to-night. I should like to call attention to the fact that, whilst the Committee recommend a reduction of £70,000, the Ministry has effected a reduction of something over £80,000. That being so, the essential point for this Committee to-night is whether it is right and proper that that reduced sum should be voted. If the recommendations of the Select Committee, who laboured so hard upon the subject, are to be accepted, I think there is no doubt as to the decision at which this Committee will arrive. There is one paragraph at the end of the Select Committee's Report, which has already been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member who was the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, and to which I desire to make one more reference. It is the paragraph at the end, which says:
The Ministry of Transport Act was conceived on a grandiose scale.
Whatever portion of this Report of the Select Committee has or has not been read by hon. Members or the public outside, everyone, including the Press, seized upon that particular phrase. Looking at the Report as it stands, it seems to me that the Sub-Committee made the bulk of the Report, and that somebody in the Main Committee added these words without having read the body of the Report itself. At the very end of a Report which confirms the existence of the Ministry, which confirms the action of the Ministry, and the expenditure of the Ministry, we get, in this last paragraph, this Parthian shot. I think I have shown, and I think my right hon. Friend showed, that, so far from being grandiose, this Ministry is performing a useful and necessary function, and is performing it without unnecessary publicity or advertisement. I believe that, when the present Act of Parliament comes to a natural termination, and the work of the Ministry is reviewed, it will be found that it has been useful and necessary and of great advantage to the country, whether it is grandiose or not.

Mr. MYERS: In common with most hon. Members, I have listened with extreme interest to the speech of the Minister of Transport. I am not going to join in the criticism that has been urged from various quarters in respect of the administration of the Department. Complaints are heard from various sections of the community as to the length of time their goods are on the railways; and also, it must be admitted, murmurs of dissatisfaction are heard from the travelling public in respect of the increases that have been imposed upon railway fares. Having regard, however, to the circumstances of the case, and to the legacy handed down to the Minister of Transport, it would seem that, all things being considered, really good work has been done with the material that he had at hand. The most interesting part of his speech was, perhaps, the most extraordinary. The recital of the agreements which had hampered the activities of the Minister startled the House, I think, considerably. Those agreements are characterised, so far as we can understand them from the Minister's observations, by a pronounced lopsidedness in the direction of advantage to the railway companies. The agreement for deferred maintenance, which has left the companies in possession of £36,000,000 to meet any contingencies of the future, would seem to be open to some question, even though the Minister gave it his blessing. The agreement relating to capital expenditure is also open to some doubt and question, and the agreement relating to the replacement of stores on the 1913 basis seems to be an agreement the like of which one has never heard of before. In the latter part of his speech, when he was discussing the effect of railway operations in other countries, the right hon. Gentleman made the remark that politics usually pollute administration. One wonders to what extent the political influence of railway interests is behind those agreements. The most extraordinary part of the business in regard to these agreements is the Minister's statement that he did not know of their existence when he presented his Estimates last December, and that claims and continually being made, and others are to come, many in number and large in extent. The most striking part of his speech in that connection was that he had to wait weeks and months to get those
agreements into his hands, and that, finally, he had himself to approach the railway companies in order to get them. That seems to be an evidence that the railway companies desired to cling to what they had got, and not even to assist the Minister of Transport in his investigation.
The Minister stated that the Government pay the companies their guaranteed net receipts. There is considerable misunderstanding in the country upon this point, and the country would like to be informed what actually is the amount that is paid to the railway companies. Inquiries have been made and questions asked, and I have no doubt whatever that a very definite reply could be given. I am sure the country would be interested to know exactly what the responsibilities of the Government are in cash payments to the railways of the country at the present time. The Minister further declared that the railways were earning something like 4 per cent., and he intimated that that 4 per cent. was on a capital of £1,300,000,000. Every writer upon railway matters that I have consulted, who can be taken as any authority at all, declares that not less than one-third of the railway capital of the country is watered stock, that is to say, that the actual railway capital of the country is nearer £800,000,000 than £1,300,000,000. If the earnings of the railways were calculated upon the actual capital that has been put down in pounds, shillings, and pence, the rate of interest would be considerably higher than 4 per cent. The Minister also said that the State has given no orders to the companies that would increase the costs of the undertakings, except those under the head of wages, and we were told that a Special Committee which has just been sitting, composed of railway directors, workmen, representatives of the public, and so on, has come to the conclusion that the increase of wages in the case of the railwaymen was not up to the normal standard of increase in other grades and occupations. When the railwaymen, during these last three or four years, have urged their claims for increased wages, they have been met by one or two propositions. The comparison of the receipts of the railways with expenditure, and so on, has been hurled at the heads of the railwaymen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley stated that the arrangement entered into with the railway companies
in the first instance was to hand the railways back to the companies after the War in as good a condition as in 1913, with the condition that in the meantime the railways performed certain services for the Government free of charge. It is estimated that in 1918, if the work done for the Government had been charged at pre-War rates, it would have brought £17,000,000 into the railway companies' exchequer for that year. When we have been contending questions of wages with the Government due allowance has not been made for the work done for the Government upon the railways, which was either done at a reduced charge or at no, charge at all.
8.0 P.M.
Further, we are confronted with this position at the present moment—or at any rate it prevailed up to a quite recent date. The travelling public are familiar with the increased charges which are put upon railway travelling, and we are told that further charges are in contemplation. Up to a quite recent date, however, we understand that the goods traffic of this country was carried at the same rate as in pre-War days; that is to say, while all costs of maintenance and upkeep, wages, etc., were in the upward direction, the traders of the country have had the advantage of having work done for them by the railways at the same figure as before the War. Obviously that is another contribution to the argument that, if the traders of the company had been subject to the same law and the same tendencies as all other elements in society, considerably more revenue would have come into the coffers of the railway companies, and concessions could have been made to the railwaymen out of those extra receipts without having the extra trouble and contention that there has been between the Government and the railway companies these last three years. The Minister said the railways were a losing concern, but he instantly qualified that by the observation that it was not quite that at present. We have had that story before and there has never yet been any satisfaction given that that position could be sustained. Let me read a paragraph—
The State is now running the railways at a loss, due in the main to the enormous increase made in the wages of railway workers since the beginning of the War and also to the great reduction effected in the hours of labour. This loss is now being borne by the general taxpayer and will soon
have to be passed on to the general public in the form of increased fares and charges.
That statement was made last year by the Prime Minister. It was circulated to the country as a reply to the demands of the railwaymen at the time the railwaymen had their notices handed in. There has never been any substantial support yet given to that declaration. As a matter of fact a good deal of evidence can be found upon the other side.
In 1913 the total receipts of the railways of the country were £139,000,000, the working expenses were £87,000,000, and the net receipts were £50,000,000. in 1918 the receipts had gone up to £197,000,000, or £60,000,000 more than 1913. The working expenses had gone up to £143,000,000. They were roughly £60,000,000 above the 1913 figures. But the net receipts had gone up from £50,000,000 to £53,000,000, and the net receipts as shown by the figures of the Board of Trade for 1917 and 1918 were the highest net receipts in the history of the railway service of this country, and at the very time these figures were being published by the Board of Trade we had the Prime Minister circulating a document to the public that the railways were being worked at a loss, and that loss was being passed on to the general public. A White Paper published by the Government in May of this year shows that the profits of the railways for 1916 and 1917 were £50,000,000 and £55,000,000 respectively, and that a surplus of £19,000,000 on two years found its way into the coffers of the Government, and this House and the country are entitled to know, in view of these figures of the Government and the Board of Trade, are the railways being worked at a loss, and, if so, to what extent, and where these net receipts of over £50,000,000 a year are going, who is getting them, and how are they being disposed of. Further, the Minister referred to the cost of our railway mileage in construction, and intimated that the cost of construction was £54,000 per mile, and in the other three countries which he named he said it was £30,000, £24,000 and £14,000 respectively. There is no secret as to where this cost comes in. It is well-known to those who have studied railway construction that the extra cost is due very largely to the penalties imposed upon railway develop-
ment by lawyers' charges and the conduct of landlords.
Something was said about waste. While substantial economies may be effected something can be said in favour of the Minister that he has done exceptionally well with the material that he had at command. The legacy handed down to him from the previous administration was a tremendously heavy one. He mentioned the fact that in respect of mileage and the tonnage carried we do not compare favourably with the railway systems of other countries and there is some reason for that, and while he deprecates the new era of managment in a certain direction which prevails very largely in other countries we are under no doubt whatever on this side of the House upon this point. Up to recently as much went in dividends to shareholders as went in wages to the workers on the railways, and man for man, roughly speaking, there is a shareholder for every worker on the railway. We will apply to that problem the declaration which is well understood and which has been heard in this House coming from a prominent personage in the State, "we will sack the lot." There is no need for 51 railway companies. There is no need for several hundred railway directors or officials at £5,000 a year, which I take it all has to be provided for out of the income of the railway service. The railway system has got to be extended and developed. Only a few days ago I was in one of the richest districts in mineral wealth in the country. I have never been in a district so badly served by railways. A single line of railway where limestone, iron ore, lead ore, ironstone and all the rest of it is being mined. Scratch the surface and everywhere mineral wealth seems to be available. A single line of railway, two hours and three minutes to do 31 miles and no waiting for connections! It is development in those districts that is necessary and we shall never have development under the existing system of railway management from the point of view of competitive railway companies. I believe from the point of view of the railway workers they are more satisfied to-day that they can get a square deal at the hands of the Minister of Transport than they have been for some time. Only a few years back the railways were put in the hands of the military. At that time the railway men were defending
an average weekly earning of 25s. 9d. a week. They have more confidence in the Minister of Transport being unlikely to do any thing in that direction, and while these extensions are desirable, economies ought to be put into operation wherever possible, but economy is not always in the direction of saving. Economy is in the direction of judicious spending and whatever charges his Department puts upon taxpayers, if the money is judiciously expended it is sound economy in the interests of the State. Subject to these observations I shall decline to go into the lobby to support any proposal to reduce the Vote.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his general review of the future of the transport of this country, which I should have thought would be more apposite when the time comes to consider the questions which the Minister of Transport commenced, but abandoned in deference to the ruling of the Chair. I think the business before us is solely concerned with the Estimates put before the Committee by the Minister for Transport. I had the privilege lately of serving on a Sub-Committee which investigated the affairs of the Ministry of Transport, and I think that every Member of that Committee will be pleased at the references made to its work by the Minister and by other Members of this Committee. Having served upon that Committee and upon a good many other Sub-Committees of the Select Committee on National Expenditure during the last three years, I feel it is right and proper for me to adopt a judicial attitude. In anything I say I shall endeavour to be perfectly fair to the Minister of Transport and his staff, and I shall avoid, if I possibly can, taking any biassed or partisan view on the question we have had to investigate. That has been the attitude throughout its existence of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and it is an attitude which has on many occasions met with the approval of Committees of this House. I entirely agree with the remarks made by the Minister of Transport in the opening part of his speech in connection with the use that is being made of the Report of the Select Committee.
I agree that very many of these comments are both misleading and unfair to him and to his Department. It is perfectly
true that no charge of extravagance in expenditure was made by the Select Committee, and the impression I derived from what I saw after very careful study at the Ministry was that there was a very general desire on the part of the officials of that Department, from its heads downwards, to be careful in the expenditure of public money. The chief criticism I have to make on the Estimates is that there was far too much provision made for expenditure which the Department did not expect to incur, and therefore I consider that it was wrong, and the Treasury in passing the Estimates was wrong in giving these very wide margins. The Estimates seem to have been framed in what I may call the Vote of Credit atmosphere, under which we were for four or five years, during which Treasury control was absolutely abrogated and in which the Select Committee on National Expenditure vainly endeavoured for the most part to point out extravagance during the War and to cut down unnecessary expenditure. If we are to get back to what I may call the atmosphere of strict Parliamentary control, we have first as soon as possible, to get out of this Vote of Credit atmosphere, and the sooner we do it the sooner we shall be able to exercise effective supervision over the estimates and expenditure of the various Government Departments. On that point there is one very important matter mentioned in connection with this Report. For a great many years past this House has had no opportunity of seeing Estimates Committees in being, and at work. I believe that the last Estimates Committee dealing with Estimates—

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the
end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Every other local body that wishes to borrow money has to obtain the consent of the Local Government Board, and has to submit to that Board the reasons why a particular sum of money has to be borrowed. That is not so in the case of the London County Council. They stand in an exceptional position. The only people who have the power of vetoing or of allowing, as the case may be, the incurring of large expenditure by the London County Council are the House of Commons. As probably everybody in this House knows, the Government have already got more work than they can possibly deal with, and so far as I am aware they never have interfered with the London County Council Money Bills which have been brought before the House of Commons year after year for us to deal with, and I submit that it is the duty of private Members of the House of Commons to devote at least the small time of one evening in the year to the very large sums of money which are being borrowed and spent by the London County Council, because it is our duty, and our duty alone, to criticise the expenditure. That is the general broad point. During the War, the expenditure of money by the London County Council was much less than in other years, and I pay this tribute to the County Council that they seem to have exercised economy during the period when it was very important to exercise economy, which was exceedingly valuable. Consequently this matter has not been brought before the House for the last four or five years. This matter has now been brought up on Report, rather than on Second Reading, for the convenience of everybody concerned. It was being brought up before the Whitsuntide vacation, but the County Council preferred that it should be brought up afterwards, as otherwise they would have lost the Committee Stage before the vacation. Therefore, probably it is in better form for us to give a judgment on the matter.
I may call attention to one or two of the most, salient items in this Bill, and ask for an explanation as to why this House should sanction the expenditure of these very large sums of money. The hon. and learned Member for Paddington (Sir H. Harris) is in charge of this
Bill, and I am perfectly certain that nobody is more likely to be able to give full information on these points or to put forward the County Council case more clearly, because we know that for many years—and we all owe him a deep debt of gratitude for it—he has worked unselfishly on the County Council as Chairman of the County Council, and the County Council suffered a great loss in their Chairman coming here, but it is of this advantage to us, that he is thoroughly familiar with County Council finance, and he will put their case to us, possibly with a slight bias in favour of the County Council, but in a perfectly clear and lucid way. In the main body of the Bill there have been certain broad changes. There is an extension of the number of years within which loans have to be repaid. In Clause 6 they propose in a very large number of cases that the 60 years within which certain sums have to be repaid should be extended to 80 years. Probably it is necessary, but I would like the hon. Member to tell us whether the finances of the County Council, or the borough councils to which the loans are made, are in such a state that it is really necessary to make this extension. I should imagine it is very likely that that is so. If that is so, it is a great reason why there should be more rigid economy in the rest of the Bill. The vast importance of the Bill is in the Schedule which consists of a large number of different matters upon which the County Council propose to spend money during the ensuing year. I want to impress upon the House and upon the County Council that economy at the present time is a very important matter. It is important that big bodies like the House of Commons and the London County Council should show an example in economy. The general public will never believe in economy until they see these larger bodies are exercising rigid economy. It must be clearly and definitely shown that expenditure must be incurred, and that it cannot be delayed without injuring other interests. At the present time the use of labour in building, or any work like building, is undesirable unless it is absolutely essential. The first claim on building labour is for housing the population. We are frequently told that the builders of these luxury buildings are not the same class who build houses but there is a good deal of fallacy in that. The contractors, in many cases, and the men they employ are the same type of
people who are employed in building houses. Certainly, if you postpone luxury building you are doing a great service to the community and affording an opportunity for dealing with the housing problem.
I should like to call attention to two items in the Schedule. One item relating to the London County Council Tramways and Improvements Act, 1914, shows that the original estimate was £78,000. That has been increased to over £100,000, and they propose to spend £59,000 during this year. In connection with the Mare Street tramway and other extensions, the original estimate was £46,000. The amount spent up to the present time is £850, the amount estimated to be spent is £75,000, and they propose to spend £54,000 this year. The County Council must make out a very strong and definite case to show that this very large expenditure on street widening for the purpose of tramways is really necessary at the present time. Here we have large increases in the original estimate of £50,000 in both cases for extending and widening the tramways system. This must be taken in conjunction with another item called Acts relating to tramway construction, reconstruction of tramways, provision of buildings, power-stations, machinery and rolling-stock, and other purposes, for which they ask the first time for £1,311,000 during the existing year, and after that over £500,000 in the six subsequent months. This expenditure upon tramway enterprise at the present time does require a great deal of explanation. Is this tramway enterprise paying? Is the institution of twopenny fares during the day for any distance during certain hours a danger signal that the tramways are not paying, or does it mean that they are in a prosperous condition? Whether it is or is not, the days of tramways as a means of locomotion are, in the opinion of many, numbered It may be said that they are not numbered, but many of us think that motor omnibuses will supersede them very shortly. Is this the time to incur during the current year more than one-and-a-quarter millions in the construction and reconstruction of the tramway system, and over £100,000 in widening the streets for the purpose of tramways? There is another item in the Schedule, in which it is proposed to spend £28,000 on the erection and equipment of new offices, and to provide additional plant for testing
gas meters, and for the erection and equipment of new offices for testing weights and measures. I do not know what office is required for testing weights and measures, but if the old office could be made to last another year or two, it would be a desirable thing, and that we should not spend £28,000 this year in the erection of these new buildings for the testing of weights and measures and gas.
There is another matter which I have raised before, not only on the general principle, but on the particular principle, and that is, in regard to the County Council. In the Schedule of the Bill the County Council is required to state the total estimate as shown in previous Money Acts, the approximate expenditure to 31st March, 1920, and the extra amount they are asking the House to sanction. That is very desirable; otherwise we are sanctioning the expenditure of money without knowing what has been spent and what is to be spent. The new county hall is being built across the river, and on the front of it is a huge poster asking us to buy 6 per cent. Housing Bonds. Instead of the County Council observing that salutory rule of giving full particulars of expenditure, there is not a word in the Bill as to the amount estimated in the previous Money Acts, the expenditure up to 21st March last or the extra estimated expenditure. They simply ask for £525,000, which they propose to spend on this edifice during the current year, and in addition £280,000 in the succeeding six months. I cavil very strongly at that information below withheld from the House, and I ask what are the sums that have been authorised in previous Money Acts, and the amounts that have been spent on this building up to 31st March. I have previously tried to get an estimate of the cost of the building. Year after year I asked the question and never got an answer. On one occasion we voted, I think, £1,000,000. I want to know what is the amount which has been authorised by previous Acts of Parliament, how much had already been spent on the building, how much it is intended to spend, whether there is any Estimate or contract, when the contract was entered into, and when the Estimate was made? Is this £750,000 likely to finish the building or not? Is there any guarantee that that will complete it, or are we next year to be asked to add some more thousands of pounds? There is a suggestion here of two quite
new items. It is proposed to spend £88,000 on the provision of a new Court House for Quarter Sessions and a small sum in the succeeding six months. Is the expenditure of that £88,000 really necessary this year? Have not the Courts of Quarter Sessions been held in the present buildings for a very large number of years? I am not going to say one word in their favour or to the contrary, but are they not good enough to go on with for a few years longer? Where is the new Court House to be built, and why cannot building be deferred?
There is one item which, I hope, it will be possible to amend. It is the duty of this House to pass any money which the County Council wish to borrow. An item here is to provide for possible expenditure for purposes sanctioned by Parliament, for which it may be desirable that the County Council shall have power, and the amount is £200,000, with £100,000 for the next six months. That item ought not to appear in this Bill. What it really comes to is, putting in an item of £200,000 for "Sundries." If we are to exercise, perfunctorily as we do, any sort of control over these things, I suggest that £200,000 is excessive. Such an item has never appeared before. The highest sum hitherto has been £50,000. There has been added in Committee a schedule of matters which have been sanctioned by previous Acts of Parliament, and which have not yet been spent. They say they brought forward a sum of £32,000,000 as the amount which they are authorised to borrow ordinarily, and then they put in an item of over £12,000,000 which they are authorised to borrow during the present year for matters sanctioned in previous Acts of Parliament. My Hon. Friend will say that that is not his fault, that it relates to the action of previous Parliaments. The commitments of the County Council already are very large indeed, and the fact that they are going to spend this year a sum of £12,000,000 or thereabouts is all the more reason for rigid economy in what is sanctioned now. If my hon. Friend makes out a case for urgency no one would be more willing than I that the County Council should have what they require, but we should look closely at these figures before we pass them sub silentio.

Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment. One is alarmed at these borrowings by the County Council. For the life of me I cannot understand why their borrowings for the financial year, which are aggregated at the end of Schedule 5, are £3,100,000, and yet for the six months following the financial year they ask this House to authorise an expenditure of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 more. That surely cannot be good finance. Why is it that the County Council desire to have this large sum in hand for the six months following the financial year when they require only £3,000,000 for the financial year? The sums that the County Council are raising for tramways are alarming. I calculate that for tramways extensions they require over £2,000,000. I would ask, Are the County Council tramways paying? What is there to justify this immense expenditure? What are these extensions? There is £50,000 for omnibuses. When it appeared in the Schedule of the Bill, before amendment in Committee, it was given as provision of omnibuses, construction and equipment of tramways, purchase of land and other purposes for the tramways undertaking, and for that £50,000 was asked. As amended in Committee that item now appears simply for the provision of omnibuses, and yet, though the extra items have been struck out, the same sum of £50,000 is still asked for. Why, I ask, should the County Council be given powers as to a sum of £8,000,000 or more six months after their financial year has expired? According to the Bill they are receiving borrowing powers for a sum of £32,000,000, and in that item we are asked to revote a sum of £12,000,000, showing that in the past Parliament has granted more than they require. Then there is a very convenient Clause which extends the period of repayment of certain debts from 60 to 80 years. How much does that represent capitalised? What is the good of trying to reduce rents if you increase rates? What is now doing more to create unrest and kill building and enterprise are these vastly rising rates. The rates have increased in some cases from 60 to 70 per cent., and in some I should say possibly cent. per cent. This increase of rates is creating the greatest possible distress amongst the poorest of the people, and I emphatically protest against it. I do not propose to travel over the ground so ably
covered by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson), but I wish to support him in his protest against this expenditure. It may be that we shall get little or no redress, but at any rate it is desirable to call attention to the matter at a time when money is greatly required for undertakings of various kinds. What rate, may I ask, will have to be paid for this money with the extension of the time for some payments from 60 to 80 years? This figure of £32,000,000 does not really represent all that is being permanently added to the capital debt of the London County Council. I hope that this expenditure may be curtailed and that something will be done in the matter.

Sir HENRY HARRIS: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) for his references to myself, and I am also grateful to him for postponing criticism until the Report Stage for the convenience of the promoters. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the London County Council differs from all other local bodies in that it is the only body which can bring any criticism to bear on the House of Commons and not, as in the case of other bodies, the Local Government Board. I would point out that the County Council is compelled to go to the Treasury, and, in my view, the Treasury is a more stern critic of expenditure than the Local Government Board. Therefore, it is not true that the only criticism comes from this House, as it comes as well from the Treasury. My hon. Friends who seconded complained that the County Council asked for borrowing powers in respect of six months after the end of the financial year. That is done in pursuance of an Act of Parliament passed by this House. As to the points put, I think I am entitled to mention that I only had notice of them before this Debate started, and therefore I do not think it can be expected that I can give information on all the matters, nor, indeed, do I think this is the occasion when this House can properly discuss the question as to the tramway policy of the County Council. It really is impossible to do so now. The proper time is upon Tramway Bills. The Council has to come to Parliament to get permission to carry out tramway schemes, and all these tramways have been authorised by Parliament. First of all, it was pointed out that it is proposed in a Clause of this
Bill to substitute eighty years for sixty years as regards repayment of money to be made by the London County Council for housing schemes. That has been done on the suggestion of the Ministry of Health. I do not think that the County Council would have put it forward on their own initiative. It is the period the Ministry of Health is adopting for the repayment of these loans.
The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out the increase in the estimated cost of Item No. 11 in Schedule 1, in connection with the purchase of property and execution of works. That is due to obvious reasons, which anybody can gather; it costs very much more to carry out works now than when they were originally made. I am afraid I cannot give him any definite information about the small item at the bottom of page 8, namely, the erection and equipment of new offices for the Sale of Gas Acts, but I can only imagine it is necessary for carrying out the statutory duties of the Council. In regard to the new County Hall, I think it is rather hard that my hon. and learned Friend should not read the Bill before making his criticisms. He said it was a very salutary rule that an estimate must be given and that that rule had been broken, but that is not so. No Parliamentary Estimate has been given with regard to the County Hall, because none is required. The County Council erects the buildings it requires under its general powers, but I am glad to give my hon. and learned Friend such information as I can. I believe the estimate for the County Hall is about £2,000,000, and about £700,000 has, I think, been actually spent. With regard to the new Court House for Quarter Sessions, I am afraid that I cannot give any definite information as to the necessity for it, but I know it has been pressed for for many years, and I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should object to that particular item. As regards Item 22, relating to tramways. the hon. and learned Member referred to that as new work, and said it had not been sanctioned by Parliament, but I would call attention to the note, which says:
Expenditure is partly the subject of estimates in special Acts, and partly under general statutory powers, but the expenditure on the tramway undertaking is treated as a whole in the Council's accounts and is not recorded against the several estimates.
I think he will see, therefore, that a
great deal of the work proposed to be carried out there has really been sanctioned by Parliament under various Acts. In regard to Item 23, "Any other Act," that was formerly £50,000, instead of £200,000 as it is at present. I think some item of that kind is required, and I do not think when you consider the very large and multifarious duties of the Council it is a very large thing to give them a power of spending £200,000 upon matters which really may be urgent and necessary in the interests of London. If you have a body such as the London County Council, which is elected by some 4,000,000 people, you must give them a certain amount of trust and credit for a certain amount of commonsense, and I think it is rather cavilling to take exception to an item of that kind. As regards Part II of the Schedule, this information is always given in the Money Bill, but the actual figures are always put in at the last moment, in order to be able to give the final figures. I hope hon. Members will observe that the Council, under its financial system, surrender previous borrowing powers amounting to over £12,000,000, and that has to be deducted from the £32,000,000, which is the total borrowing power shown by the Bill, so that the new borrowing powers are something like £19,000,000. I think we are all alarmed at the borrowings, but it will be seen that there is a very large sum for housing and that the tramways required in connection with the housing schemes are a very large commitment. My hon. and learned Friend wanted to raise the tramway question, but after all, the whole of these tramway schemes are approved by Parliament. It is a question of how far tramways are suitable for many of the London streets. I agree, but I think at any rate we must take it that they are required in the interests of locomotion and housing in London. This Bill is a very urgent matter. I understand the housing schemes of the Council are likely to go ahead very fast, and it is therefore extremely important that they should have the necessary powers. I think I have now answered all the points which have been raised, and I hope my hon. Friends will allow the Bill to pass.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend who has just sat down said he hoped he had given a satisfactory answer to all the questions. I submit very respectfully
that, though he made a very pleasant speech, he gave no answer at all to the criticisms. He said we must not ask anything about the tramways, because the House of Commons has already authorised the making of these tramways. I am not sure, but my belief is that in the various Tramway Acts no estimate of the expenditure is put in, but even supposing that it is, let us have a look at when these Acts were passed. The first Tramway Act to which he alludes was authorised in 1911, the next was authorised in 1912, and the next in 1914. I venture to submit that in the last eight years there has been a very great alteration in the necessities for tramways. Let us remember what took place this year. The London County Council brought in a Tramway Bill, which was rejected on Second Reading, if not unanimously, at any rate, by a very large majority.

Sir H. HARRIS: A Motion to suspend the Standing Orders was rejected.

9.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: It came to the same thing, and really was worse, because the Council were not contented to take the ordinary course, and not only wanted to shove the Bill through the House, but to alter the Standing Orders. That was rejected, and the whole of the speeches were directed to the fact that tramways are obsolete, that they lose money, and that motor omnibuses are far better. There are various Tramway Acts from 1911 onwards, the last being in 1915. I very much doubt whether it is necessary to go on with tramway schemes at all. Secondly, I would point out that when the Estimate was made in the year 1911–12, the cost was far less than it would be now, and if the County Council has been content to wait six to nine years without these tramways, as locomotion such as tubes and motor omnibuses is far better now, why should they not wait for a few years, when they could construct the tramways, if they must have them, at much less cost, because no one believes that these enormous prices will last. I cannot say when they will come down, but that they will come down is certain. My hon. Friend says it is quite true the London County Council would not have extended the period of repayment from 60 to 80 years if the Ministry of Health had not recommended it. We have a very extravagant Government, and I am inclined to think that the Ministry of
Health is one of its most extravagant Departments. I do not think my hon. Friend could have found a worse example to follow. I do not wish to criticise the Government unfairly, but I hope the hon. Member (Mr. Towyn Jones), who is one of two hon. Members representing the Government in this House at the present time, will give some reason why my hon. Friend should follow the example of the Government Department. My hon. Friend says that Clause 6 only relates to land. I have had the opportunity of looking up the various Housing Acts from 1890 to 1919. I should be almost inclined to think in some of those Acts there is provision for erecting houses. I would not say that in the old days when one built a house it would not perhaps last for eighty years, but modern construction is a little different from the construction of even 50 or 60 years ago, and I think it is a very dangerous precedent to insert in an Act, notwithstanding that the Ministry of Health has recommended it, a provision extending the period of repayment from 60 to 80 years.
My hon. Friend opposite asked whether there was an estimate for the building of the London County Council. My hon. Friend says there was an estimate, which was supposed to have been for about £2,000,000—when we get into millions it is always "about"—and about £700,000 has been spent. One has to be very careful in these days, when one listens to answers from Gentlemen who are in an official position, or acting in an official position, because very often words in the English language have two meanings. What does my hon. Friend mean when he says "an estimate"? Does he mean that the officials of the county council said, "We want a magnificent hall. We ought to build one worthy of the county council. We ought to spend £2,000,000 upon it"? Is that what he means by "estimate"? Or does he mean a contract at a fixed price, with a responsible firm, to build according to plans for £2,000,000, and no more? My hon. Friend wanted to know whether there was a fixed contract, and whether, in consideration of a sum, a finished building would be handed over to the county council. What has taken place between the years when the provision was first made—probably in 1912—and now? I am not sure we did not pass an Act
of Parliament that a contract made before the War would be no longer valid, owing to the increased cost of wages and materials. My hon. Friend might have enlightened us upon this particular point, but perhaps, with the indulgence of the House, he may be able to tell me whether or not there was an actual contract—I do not mean an estimate, but a firm, binding contract? Was that made in 1912, and to what extent has that been valid owing to the conditions brought about by the War?
Let me come to the estimated capital requirements in the Schedule. It says, "London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, 1920" (if it becomes law). It has not become law, so far as I know, and that being so, why do we want to spend £60,000 on street improvements and £50,000 upon the provision of omnibuses? Why should we grant this power to the County Council? According to Part IV. of the Schedule, the amount asked for is not less than £32,000,000. It takes one's breath away when one is continually talking about millions. From that amount we have to deduct £12,000,000. The County Council had powers to borrow £12,00,000, but they did not exercise the powers, perhaps for reasons of economy, and they now regret that they have been economical, and they ask for a re-enactment of the power to borrow the £12,000,000. That makes a net new borrowing of £19,982,766. It is practically £20,000,000. I am a ratepayer in the County of London, and I look with horror upon the fact that I have got to provide interest on a further sum of £20,000,000, which is to be spent, so far as I can make out, in unremunerative enterprises. I see that to-day in Poplar the rates are 20s. in the £, and I am very much afraid that, unless we are very careful, the rates which the London County Council will impose will come to something like a similar sum.
My hon. Friend has said that the London County Council is deserving of confidence because it is elected by some millions of people. That is one reason why it does not deserve confidence, because the majority of the 4,000,000 people who have a right to vote for the London County Council do not pay rates. They may get something out of it—such as a cheat, tram or a cheap house, but they have not to put their hands into
their pockets in order to provide the money. That is one of the most serious problems that this country will have to face. We will have to consider whether the people who are allowed to spend the money are people who do not provide it, and are able to put the obligation upon someone else. We ought to thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter before the House. Before the War the London County Council Bills were often discussed in this House, and that practice, like many others, has fallen into desuetude during the War I congratulate him upon having revived this very excellent practice, and if it does no other good, it will show the members of the London County Council that there are still some Members in this House who desire that too much money shall not be spent at the expense of the ratepayers.

Mr. GILBERT: I rise to try to answer some of the unfriendly comments upon the London County Council which have just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. It is not the first time that fie has criticised the County Council. He has raised certain points about certain items in the Money Bill now before the House. He has raised questions upon No. 9 and other numbers in the Schedule. He said there was a vote of £3,240 in connection with a Tramways and Improvements Act which was passed in 1911, and he made some point with regard to certain other items based upon Bills passed in 1912, 1913, and 1914. May I explain that item No. 9 deals with the widening of streets in the north-east of London—Dalston Lane and Graham Road? It is the balance of the widening account in that particular area, and the amount is £3,240. I think that is the explanation. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who has had such a long experience of public work, must know that when widening has to be carried out by the County Council or the Borough Councils in London it is not always carried out in the same year. There are leases which have to run for a few years, and somtimes sub-leases, and these leases are allowed to run out, with the result that the improvement which may have been passed in 1911, such as street widening, may be seven, eight, or nine years before it is completed. I had not any notice that these detailed criticisms would be made, but I think that is the explanation
of No. 9. Then No. 10 is a Tramways and Improvements Act of 1913; and, with regard to No. 11, that has to do with the Tramways and Improvements Act of 1914. It had to do with the widening of a suburban area at Eltham, but there was also a district in Piccadilly where widening had to be done. He further dealt with the question of tramways. A few weeks ago we had a Debate upon the suspension of the Standing Orders with regard to the London County Council tramways, and I am sorry that the suspension was not agreed to, in order that the County Council might come before the Committee and lay the tramway finances before that Committee of experts. I am sure that if hon. Members have gone into the question of the finances of the London County Council tramways, they would have found that the statements that have been made—unsupported by figures and facts—that the tramways are losing money was not now correct, and that very different figures could have been produced. It might have been shown that the tramways were paying now, rather than losing money.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Are they making a profit?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): We cannot go into that question.

Mr. GILBERT: Perhaps I may be allowed to say in reply that, according to the last published figures, the London County Council tramways were being run at a profit.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot have a discussion on the working of the London County Council tramways.

Mr. GILBERT: I only wished to answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the question of the time allowed for the housing loan. That has been decided with the consent of the Health Ministry, backed by the Treasury, and we are carrying out their orders and wishes. I think that ought to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City. He asked a question about the London County Council Hall. I regret that I cannot give him an answer in detail, but I can tell him that on the first decision to build that County Hall, a firm contract was made with a reputable firm of contractors. During the War, the Ministry of Munitions stopped all building, including that of the
County Council Hall. The right hon. Gentleman must have known that; he must have observed that the building was stopped for two or three years. The result has been that a new contract has had to be made owing to the great increase in cost of labour and material. I am sorry I have not the figures, but we had entered in a firm contract and that had to be cancelled owing to the War, and now I think we have done the best thing we can with the half-finished building. We are trying to get it completed as quickly as possible, and to get into occupation and to save the cost of the rental of the numerous buildings which we have to occupy at the present time. Reference has also been made to Part II, dealing with the purchase of omnibuses. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that if the Bill is not passed it would be quite impossible to borrow any money to carry out the proposals of that Bill, but we are bound to put in these provisions in case the Bill should pass through the Committee. If the Bill does not pass, as he seems to prophesy, the money for Part II. will not be used at all. He also says that the London County Council was not elected by the majority of the people; that the majority of the people did not pay rates. Surely he knows better than that.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot allow a discussion on the electoral system of the London County Council.

Mr. GILBERT: I was only replying to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not notice how the hon. Gentleman was developing his argument, or I would have stopped him before.

Mr. GILBERT: I thought that as my right hon. Friend was not stopped I might try to answer him. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that if he had read the Housing Bill, which was before the Committee upstairs, he would have found there, and also in the Rent Bill, that even the ledgers in London have to pay increased rents under these Bills.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill
be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £848,642, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including sundry Charges in connection with Transportation Schemes, etc., under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and certain Repayable Advances under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919.

Debate resumed.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by £750,000.
This is one of the first opportunities we have had for years of seeing an Estimate Committee at work. I hope the Committee of the House has found it advantageous to have the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure before them when hon. Members were considering the matter which is now before us, in view of the fact that it devoted its primary attention to the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport. I have never been able to understand the objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accepting the advice and recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, or an Estimates Committee. I do not propose to develop this, for it would not be in order, but I would point out to hon. Members that to-day we have had an example of the assistance which a Committee of this House can be in preparing work for the consideration of the House in connection with Estimates. I do not think that the Government can complain of the manner in which this work has been done, or that the Committee overstepped the line in considering the expenditure, which it should always draw between policy and economy. The care of the Committee has
been always not to criticise policy, but to show how, within the limits of the policy of the Government, saving could be effected either by readjusting items or the manner in which they are dealt with, or by economies of staff, and other cognate matters. The effect of these Estimates, to our mind, was that such savings were possible, and might be effected, not because the expenditure was large which came under our eye, or there was extravagance intentionally or otherwise, but we thought it was not the right thing the quite unnecessary margins of possible expenditure at the will of the Department should be provided for, or that the House should be asked to vote large sums of money which were reminiscent of the War Vote of Credit atmosphere.
There was another matter. We found the utmost difficulty at the outset in finding out really what the figures meant, because there is not a sufficiently good method adopted. You have to look amongst old volumes and through many pages which are not in juxtaposition. Then if you examine the accounts and the salaries paid, and consider how those salaries are likely to be affected by such questions as war bonuses, and so on, you have the utmost difficulty in finding out what is the real position of the accounts of the Department. We had to go through these accounts with the various heads of the Departments, and find out what were the duties of the staffs, before we could form an opinion as to whether the work was being economically done, and within the limits of Government policy. The Ministry of Transport is in an exceptional position, because, for the first time, a special official of the Treasury and, I think, one of the most highly paid members of the Civil Service, if not the most highly paid—and what struck me at once when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) was commenting on the scale of salaries in the Civil Service was that he did not allude to the fact of a prominent Treasury official receiving a salary of £5,000 a year, which does not appear on the Ministry of Transport Vote, but on that of the Treasury—is sitting day by day in the Department supervising its work, and dealing with matters frequently sent by the Treasury. I think this last estimate is probably right and proper; at the same time the Ministry has had special facilities for preparing the work
for the Committee of this House. I regret very much indeed that we found that the accounts necessary to be presented to the Committee were in such an obscure form that it really took several weeks of hard work before the Committee, composed primarily of business men, were able to make up their minds as to what was really going on. If that be the position of Members of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, what, I ask, must be the position of private Members of this House?
The pressure on the time of Members of this House is to-day, as we all know, very considerably increased. It is not possible to study deeply all the matters on which we have to form a judgment. I think it is, therefore, specially incumbent upon the Government and upon Government officials to see that where information is supplied to this House upon which this House has to form a judgment it shall be presented in the simplest, plainest, and best-arranged form possible, so as to diminish the work of private Members, and so that they can understand the accounts upon which they have to pass a judgment. That, to my mind, is the most important matter which the Committee could decide. To my mind, it is far more important than the question on which the country seems to have been misled largely by the Press—believing that there has been great Departmental extravagance. The Minister of Transport was perfectly correct in saying that we found no such extravagance going on. We might, perhaps, have had, I will not say suspicions, but, at any rate, we might have felt, if we had more time, disposed to criticise certain matters in more detail. But that is not, I think, what the House wishes from this Committee. We can only give to the best of our ability and judgment a general impression, and a general view of the Department and its work. Where one finds, on the whole, the work of the Department properly and well done, I do not think the House wants the Committee to go into small matters of pounds, shillings, and pence. That, then, is the impression that I bore away as to the work effected at the Ministry of Transport. It has taken a considerable amount of time, great care, and attention on the part of the Committee, which has been, I think I may say, and I have been on a good many Committees,
a particularly hard-working and capable Committee.
That brings me to the point of the margins. We must bear in mind that these large margins are not included in the Estimates, though that does not in the least prevent the Department incurring extra expenditure as may be really necessary. After all, Parliamentary control of expenditure is highly elastic. When it is necessary that a check should be imposed, it is much better that the Department should be asked to estimate as closely as possible, and they should not be given the power of accumulating large margins out of which they can spend money at will. I entirely disagree with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in saying that the checking of this immense mass of accounts could be done by ordinary firms of private accountants. I think one very good service which the Ministry has rendered to the nation is through their special knowledge in realising that this work requires not only an accounting audit, but a technical audit, and auditors unsupported by trained engineers' advice could not possibly form a right and correct judgment on many of the complicated questions that come before them. Ordinary questions of current expenditure are not the same as large questions of capital expenditure to which many other considerations apply, and in regard to which a technical investigation is necessary.
Another matter which the Committee gave the Ministry a clean bill of health upon was in connection with the roads. The Committee did not think the amount of money provided in the Estimate for this service need be questioned. Another matter we had some doubts about was in regard to the amount which was being spent by the Ministry in doing work we all know is required for the general improvement of the transport system of the country. In ordinary business one desires to do general work of that kind, and we say in business, "How much can we afford to spend upon this?" I am afraid there was no such check imposed upon the work of the various Department, who all seemed to be doing what they could to improve the transport system of the country. This branch of research and the compilation of statistics is a branch upon
which we can spend large sums of money, and I think there should be some counting of the cost before a Department runs riot amongst beneficent schemes for the general benefit of transport. The Minister has alluded, I think with justifiable pride, to the new statistics which he has compiled, but this is a very difficult question, and the House should realise that at the present time the cost of the compilation of those statistics, except in so far as a very small proportion of them is concerned, is not included in this £400,000 which appears on the Estimates for the Department. The greater portion of the cost comes as an addition. A few men have decided what statistics are necessary and they have cost comparatively little, but what has cost the money is the large staff in the Railway Clearing House and other places, whose time has been occupied in doing this work, and it must amount to a considerable sum. Such work may be very useful, but before it is undertaken on a very large scale I think the House should know how much it is really proposed to spend on this sort of work. We are spending large sums of money to improve the transport service, but I think we should know in advance, at any rate, what amount we propose to spend, and then we can be told afterwards what has actually been spent I think that is a necessary part of financial control.
I come now to a larger item, the sum of £1,000,000 which appears on the Vote for assisting and establishing new development schemes. On this point there is nothing to complain of. The Minister is going very carefully into the schemes which have been submitted by a number of people, and he has announced that he will not support any schemes which he does not think will be financially self-supporting. We consider that is a very proper precaution, the more proper when we hear that every scheme that so far has been submitted has been turned down. If we are to have this sort of control over these transport schemes, why is it necessary to provide on these Estimates such a large sum as £1,000,000 to carry out schemes for which the Minister of Transport has not the least idea what they will be for, or what they will cost, or, indeed, whether they will ever be recommended at all? That I regard as a lavish estimate which is not in the least required, and can be provided for later.
Therefore I intend to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £75,000. The Motion I put down on the Paper was placed there before the revised Estimates were submitted, and I am prepared to give the Minister credit for such reduction as he has already expressed himself prepared to make. He is prepared to reduce one item from £100,000 to £50,000, and I was very glad to hear that decision, because I could not in the least understand why the larger sum was required. As the Chairman of a Select Committee on Transport in 1918 I did give a great deal of consideration to these matters, and I could not understand how this particular statement could possibly be inserted to spend £100,000 in this way. Before the Committee over which I presided evidence was given by one of the greatest enginering authorities in this country, and he brought up to date the scheme. Before such a large sum as £100,000 is spent it will be very much better if the Departmental Committee will consider really what they intend to do in the matter.
There is a general question of policy involved. Is it proposed to try and make the canal system of Great Britain comparable to the Continental canal system and to form a network all over the country, regarding the canals as vehicles for carrying through traffic from end to end of the country, in the same way as is done by road? If that is what is intended, then we shall have to expend not only large sums on surveys, but a very large sum on works, and I can hardly believe, in the present state of the finances of the country, that any such ambitious policy can be contemplated. This question of policy will have to be considered, as well as the questions of short-distance traffic and the control and management of railways. I had proposed to move to reduce the Vote by £75,000, which would have allowed the Departmental Committee to expend £25,000 for the purposes of inquiry, but I now wish to move to reduce the whole of the Vote for the Ministry of Transport by £750,000.
With regard to all these schemes, whether of railways, canals, or roads, it is relevant to remind the Committee that we are to-day in a very different atmosphere from that which existed when the Ministry of Transport was set up. We were then filled with visions of a new
heaven and a new earth. Peope's minds were inflamed by the attractive prospects of the future held out to them in these directions. But a good deal has happened since then, and these prospects are appearing less alluring. People have begun to count the cost. There is a tendency to condemn any rapid delivery of the new heaven until it is known how much it is going to cost to get there. I think a large number of people are realising that the cost of travelling there, even with the assistance of the Minister of Transport, is likely to be very high indeed, and the way of getting there is by no means so certain as at one time appeared. There is great danger that the wrong road may be taken and that we may find ourselves on that broad high road to a place euphemistically called "'Destruction," which certainly is not in the vicinity of the new heaven. Therefore I ask the Minister of Transport to consider seriously the views which are put forward, views shared by large numbers of hon. Members, in regard to the provision he is asking the Committee to make for new schemes. If he will be content to accept a much lower amount at the present time I feel sure he will find it amply sufficient for his purposes in the new financial atmosphere which surrounds us. People have got to learn in this country that financial success lies in doing without things and, secondly, in making things do. After the War there was an idea that nothing which was useful and pleasing to the old world was sufficiently good for the new. We have learned the lesson that we can only get into a sound financial position again by adopting these methods of making things do. That is even more true with regard to Government schemes than to private expenditure. After all private expenditure will follow the Government if it shows the way. Therefore I re-echo the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) a little while ago, when he appealed to the Minister of Transport and to every other Minister who is proposing to the Committee the expenditure of large sums of money, to take this lesson to heart and to try and make things do.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My reason for rising is one rather of a personal character. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, in the course of his speech, stated that his Department had saved
the country at least a sum of £1,000,000 owing to the fact that they had discovered an agreement which he described as very improvident in character entered into by my right hon. Friend Mr. Walter Runciman when he was President of the Board of Trade. What are the facts with regard to that particular transaction? As far as I am able to understand them they are these. The agreement was entered into by my right hon. Friend after he had entered into the agreement with the other railway companies. This particular agreement related solely to the underground railways of London, and I rather think that the moving reason for it was that a large amount of traffic was coming down from the north which, for military reasons, had to be got on to the southern railways, and a certain part of the District Railway was thereby affected. It became necessary, therefore, to bring the underground railways within the scope of the general agreement. Whether that may be the reason or not, I do not know, but I rather think it was something like that; and so this particular company came within the general agreement. With whom was that agreement made? It may surprise the Committee to know that the chairman of the Underground Railway Company who negotiated the agreement with Mr. Runciman, was, as we then knew him, Sir Albert Stanley, who himself became the President of the Board of Trade in December, 1916, when Mr. Runciman demitted office. For the whole time during which this nefarious agreement was in operation, Sir Albert Stanley, the chairman, was himself the President of the Board of Trade, and he remained in office until about May, 1919. By whom was he succeeded? He was succeeded by my right hon. Friend's distinguished relative, who was President of the Board of Trade until March of this year. Therefore, we have these two very able men, each of them President of the Board of Trade, personally responsible for this nefarious agreement; and my right hon. Friend to-day produces this as the prime, leading example of what the Ministry of Transport can do when it gets to work.
The story that my right hon. Friend gave us to-day was this, as it appears to me. We went to the chairman of this Company—Lord Ashfield, who is the chairman of the Company to-day, and is
better known to us as Sir Albert Stanley, the former President of the Board of Trade—my right hon. Friend went to him and said, "I have discovered an agreement, a most improvident agreement. What do you think of it?" He said at once, "Horrible; let us tear it up, without any consideration." 'Of course, I do not know, but I suspect that the consideration for the cancellation of that agreement is to be found in the Bill which is now upstairs for the increase of the fares on the London Electric Railways. If anyone is to be called to the bar of public opinion to answer for this improvident agreement, it is not Mr. Walter Runciman, who entered into it under the stress of war conditions, which applied to all other railway companies at the time, and who only had six or eight months of the working of that agreement. It is Sir Albert Stanley, who is now Lord Ash-field. I am sure, from what I know of him, and from. what we all know of him, that he has a very good answer. It is for him to make that answer. My right hon. Friend has not very much experience of this House. He would have a lot more if he came here oftener. His genial presence and cheery smile would be welcomed here every time he was kind enough to come. I am sure that if he had been here oftener, he would not have made that attack upon Mr. Runciman. He will excuse my saying so, but it is not quite the way in which we do that kind of thing.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to add a question or two with regard to this agreement. To those of us who heard the whole of my right hon. Friend's speech this afternoon, the best point he made appeared to be the discovery of this improvident agreement. Those of us who heard the Minister's speech were convinced that he had discovered an agreement of the most improvident character, and that it was he, and he alone, who was able to go to the Chairman of the Underground Railway Company and say, "This must be torn up," and it was torn up forthwith.

Sir J. REMNANT: It was only one of many of which he knew.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was only one of many of which he knew. He told us that this agreement was one in connection with which he could clearly point to a saving of £1,000,000 next year, and
probably more the following year. I think we are entitled to know more about it. I think we are entitled to know what was in it and what was the cause of its being made. Was it, in fact, an agreement, like so many other of the railway agreements, that the Government should pay to the railway company the extra cost of wages and labour which they, the Government, insisted that the railway company should pay to their workmen? If so, it does not seem to me that there was anything very bad in it. On the other hand, what did the Chairman of the Underground Railway Company do? When my right hon Friend went to him and said, "Here is this monstrous agreement, which is costing the country £1,000,000 a year," he gave us to understand most clearly that that agreement was given up without any consideration whatever. May I put this question quite frankly? I have the honour of knowing Lord Ashfield. Although I do not act professionally for the Underground Railway Company, I am connected with him, and know him, and do not believe that the charges which have been partially levelled against him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles are in any way true. I ask the Minister if he will, here and now, state to the Committee what were the negotiations between Lord Ashfield and himself which caused that agreement to be given up, and what quid pro quo the Government gave to the Underground Railway Company. If it gave them nothing, I agree that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to take the credit of tearing it up. If, on the other hand, the Government gave the Company something worth £1,000,000 in meal or malt, my right hon. Friend the Minister had no right to come here, as he did, and take credit for saving that money to the country. I put that question to him, and leave him to answer it. No doubt after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, there will be, and, indeed, there must be, an answer from Lord Ashfield to-morrow; but I invite the Minister, for his own sake, to make a fuller statement to the Committee before we adjourn than he made this afternoon.

Sir E. GEDDES: I rise with very much pleasure to reply. I only regret that my right hon. Friend has unfortunately had to go away to catch a train.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): Do I understand that the hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham has finished his remarks?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I had not finished, but I am quite willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the moment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not an interruption. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply.

Sir E. GEDDES: I tender my apologies to the hon. Baronet.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are so many other Members wishing to speak, after the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, that I doubt whether the hon. Baronet will catch the eye of the Chair again.

10.0 P.M.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If you will not look my way, Sir Edwin, and tell me that you will not, I am afraid I must make a few more remarks. I really want to draw attention to the way the Ministry has grown, compared with the suggestions a year ago when the Transport Bill was brought in. My withers are unwrung. I never expected it would do any good, and I and several of my friends warned the House as to what we might expect in the way of salaried officials.

Mr. SWAN: Did you help it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I did not. I opposed it all the way through. The Leader of the House said that we had passed the Bill, and therefore we must accept the Ministry. The Home Secretary in introducing the Bill said:
I will be surprised if there are many officials. It cannot be a big Department of new people apart from those already being paid by the taxpayer.
In other words, he brought the Bill in as a consolidating and gathering together of officials from various other Departments and said there would be very few new officials and very little, if any, extra cost to the ratepayers. It is not for us to say that the Committee of Investigation has sat and said this particular official is good or that is not overpaid. That is not the point. What we as a Committee of Supply have to consider is whether the work that is paid for is necessary and not
merely whether A or B is getting £3,000 or £4,000 salary. I am not one of those who think brains can be paid too highly. I do not say the individual salary, if the work is necessary, is too high, but in these times to have an accumulation of officials, with sub-directors, under-directors, clerks, and so on, is far higher than the country can stand or ought to stand. I was very pleased when my hon. Friend opposite moved a comprehensive reduction of £750,000. It is no good the Government saying, "tell us which particular item you object to and we will answer you." Of course they can always defend any particular item. If the Leader of the Opposition discusses the salary of some particular individual of course the Minister can say that particular individual is not overpaid, but the point is whether the work that is being done by the Transport Ministry generally is really essential at this juncture for the well-being of the country at large. I suggest it is not. A great deal of the work is really of no use.
What was the other thing upon which the Minister claimed the acceptation of the Committee this afternoon? First, the agreement which we have referred to; and, secondly, that he has employed at the Government's expense an agent provocateur to go round the hotels and drink bottles of champagne paid for by the taxpayer. He could have sent for a wine list from the refreshment room. Actually the Transport Minister employed and paid a man to go round to the railway hotels in order to find out, by testing, I am told, whether they were charging a fair price for the champagne they sold. Really, that seems to be a monstrous waste of public money on the appointment of a public official to do that kind of thing. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has been a railway manager and knows the railway managers. He spoke highly of the directors. He could at least have sent for some of the principal railway directors and said to them, "I do not think you are making enough profit on your hotels. You are not charging as much for your champagne as they are at the Savoy or the Ritz. Could you not put it up?" And they, as honourable men, would have put it up. Instead of that he sends agents sneaking round the country in order to find out whether a fair price is charged. I do not think that is a de-
sirable way for this new Ministry to start its work.
I should like to say something about the road administration of this country. This is the one part of the Ministry which we were told has worked well. It is admirably worked by Sir Henry Maybury, but it was admirably worked by him under the Roads Board before the Board was taken over by the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman has merely taken over the staff of the Roads Board, added to it, and interfered a little more than the Roads Board did with the local authorities of the country. I am not at all sure that his road schemes are going to be for the benefit of the country as much as we expected. For instance, he is going to pay out of Government funds half the salaries of the road surveyors. Of course, all the local authorities like to have their road surveyors paid out of public funds. The Roads Board did not do it, why should the right hon. Gentleman do it? Because he wants to get his hand in the appointment of the road surveyors. Because he wants bureaucracy to extend its hand a little more into the road administration of this country. Therefore, he says to the local authorities, "I will pay half the salaries of your road surveyors, then I shall be able to have a hand in their appointment, in their dismissal and in the control of their work." Surely the local authorities have been able to manage their road surveyors pretty well up to now. They have been able to appoint them, to dismiss them, to look after them without the right hon. Gentleman paying half their salaries. Speaking as one of those who are paying these large road taxes of £8,000,000, which were to be used for the improvement of our roads, I should like to say that so far as we can find out—we have had no statement on it from the right hon. Gentleman—instead of the money being used for the improvement of the roads, it is going to be used very largely for the saving of local rates and for the maintenance of roads which have got out of repair during the War. I agree that they want repairing, but every Government Committee, every Departmental Committee for years past, has laid it down that the road expenses should be borne partly locally, partly governmentally, and partly out of the taxes on motorists. Instead of that,
about seven-eighths of the taxes on motorists are being taken by the right hon. Gentleman for road maintenance, and there is no other grant from the Government towards the maintenance of the roads of this country.
When the Bill was going through Committee we did our level best to put this Roads Department on a proper basis. My hon. Friend opposite says that it is the one Department which is working well. We fastened on that Department, with the consent of the Cabinet and with the assent of this House, a Roads Advisory Committee, composed of representatives of road users, local authorities, and people interested in the roads of this country.

Mr. GRITTEN: Not cyclists.

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: My hon. Friend says there are no cyclists on the Committee, but some of us do our best on the Committee to look after the interests of cyclists. I am not dealing for the moment with the composition of that Roads Committee, but I want to tell the House that though it was decided by this House to appoint this Roads Advisory Committee to help the right hon. Gentleman to control his administration of the roads, it has only met once since the Bill was passed, no work was done, and heaven only knows when it is going to meet again. My right hon. Friend was so taken up with his railway case this afternoon, leading up to the grand proposal which he is going to put before us in a White Paper, but of which we were un fortunately deprived, that he gave no information in regard to his road policy. I do not know whether he will have time to reply to-night. I am not at all sure whether he ought to reply to-night. Having regard to the fact that he spoke for two hours, that a private Bill intervened for an hour this evening, and that the real purpose and object of Votes in Supply is to enable criticism to be made by private Members, because it is the only opportunity we have for dealing with points of administration in the Government, I am not at all sure that there ought to be a reply to-night, but that this Debate ought to be carried over to another day to enable a large number of Members to take part. I hope sincerely that that will be the case. Finally, I appeal to the Committee not to be carried
away by statements of the right hon. Gentleman as to the essential character of this or that individual clerk or Director-General, or whatever he may be called, but to say that the time has come when we who are supporters of the Government desire to see an effort at retrenchment, and an example set to the people of the country. We cannot go on spending money as we are doing. We are entitled to say to each Minister who brings Estimates before us, "Take them back and set down their four-score instead of the hundred you are asking."

Sir E. GEDDES: I desire to reply very briefly to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) on the subject of the agreement in which Lord Ashfield's name has been mentioned. It was suggested that I had attacked Lord Ashfield, and that I had suggested that something which he had done was improper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The history of the agreement is not what my right hon. Friend gave. It is this: The Metropolitan District Railway was taken over with all the other railways on the outbreak of the War. In 1915 Parliament sanctioned pooling the rates from the various London transport agencies working in that combine. In order to get a pool on to a proper working basis you naturally have to fix the proportion which each party to the pool draws out of the pool. That was fixed by agreement between the Board of Trade and Lord Ashfield's company and the proportion agreed to by the Metropolitan District Railway, which was the controlled railway, was the 1913 receipts. The receipts were fixed, but the agreement made no provision for the two points I mentioned.

Mr. HOGGE: Did Lord Ashfield know that?

Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly. He was negotiating with the Government.

Mr. HOGGE: He was President of the Board of Trade.

Sir E. GEDDES: He was not. Mr. Runciman was President of the Board of Trade. The agreement was made between Lord Ashfield, negotiating for his company in an honourable fair way, and Mr. Runciman, President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HOGGE: indicated dissent.

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of speaking. But I am trying to meet a point which unfortunately has been put forward, which touches the reputation of a very honourable man, and I do beg that I may be allowed to give this explanation. The agreement was made between these two parties, Lord Ashfield's combine on the one hand and the British Government, represented by Mr. Runciman, on the other. They standardised the receipts on the 1913 basis. There was no Clause in the agreement which provided either for a maintenance of the services of all parties to the agreement, so that each might carry a proportionate share of traffic, which is a common, elementary Clause that hon. Members with experience of traffic agreements will know is in every traffic agreement. Another Clause that was omitted was this, that if any of the agencies over-carried they should receive a working expense.

Mr. PALMER: Why did not Lord Ashfield suggest this Clause? Doing the British Government!

Sir E. GEDDES: It was a bargain between business men, and each man looked after himself.

Mr. PALMER: During a time of war!

Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think at that time either saw the way it would work out. It turned out in the way I have stated to the Committee. Year after year, it meant that the District Railway was carrying more than its full proportion and that the Government was getting as receipts the 1913 receipts. The receipts were standardised and the expenses were not, and the expenses went up. That went on. The last two years, when the accounts were audited, it was seen that the sum was getting large. There were certain minor adjustments. Those adjustments are allowed for in the statement I have given to the Committee. When I became Minister of Transport this very agreement was mentioned by Lord Ashfield voluntarily at an inquiry held into London traffic. There can be no suggestion that he has not acted perfectly honourably. When it was mentioned by him I saw it. I said, "Look here, I have looked at that agreement. It is working in no way as we intended. You ought to cancel it." He agreed with
me and said he would cancel it. He has repeated that in evidence. I have put it in my Report to the Committee upstairs, and we fixed a date, quite properly. It was an agreement. I had no right to cancel it. When two men sign a document one of them cannot tear it up. He agreed to cancel it He said, "You shall have a right to bring it to an end when the increased fares I am applying for are through the House." What was wrong with that? It was perfectly right. He said he would fix a date. He had been incurring increased expenditure everywhere. The Committee upstairs have considered it and, without noticing my Report, they have not made it a condition. My Report suggested it should be a condition in the Bill as sent upstairs. Lord Ashfield fixed that date and very properly fixed it. He acted as an extremely honourable business man. He made a bargain as an honourable business man, and if there is any suggestion to the contrary, it is unjustifiable. The agreement was drawn up on behalf of the Government. For some years, owing to defective organisation, it was never pointed out. I do not know how it could have been seen if the auditors had not raised it. During the Board of Trade control, passenger fares were increased 50 per cent. There was no arrangement then that the agreement should come to an end. The Ministry of Transport has a right to claim that this is part of its work.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I came down to the House having no fixed intention to say a word on these Estimates. I came down in the hope, if not altogether in the belief, that I should hear something from the Minister of Transport which would, at least, satisfy me that now we were going to see some of the fruits of the labour of that Ministry during the past year. I have been moved to speak after listening to the speech of the Minister of Transport. When the Leader of the House got up to reinforce his speech I thought, Well now at last I shall hear something which will justify the existence of this Ministry. In my view, the Leader of the House felt that there was a missing link. He felt that there had been no justification made for the expense of this great Ministry, and I recognise that he touched very lightly on the points, because, I suppose, he felt that to do so too forcibly would only
direct added attention and cause added attack as to those particular points. The Minister did not deal with the Estimates, the Minister did not deal with the Report of the Select Committee. The Report of the Select Committee was divided into two parts, the first of which consisted of 92 paragraphs and a second part of one paragraph. The first 92 paragraphs deal entirely with the arithmetic of the position. I take no exception whatever to the conclusion to which the Committee came, nor do I take any exception to the conclusion come to by them in the 93rd paragraph, which has nothing to do with the previous 92. In the first 92 paragraphs they say that they looked over the work which was being done by this Ministry, and that they checked the number of men employed, and found that the men were fully employed, and that if that work is going to be done it is going to cost a particular sum of money. That is a very easy process and programme to be carried out in any investigation. But in the 93rd paragraph, they call attention to the fact that it was not within their scope to say whether or not this work was necessary, and that the determination of that problem lies with Parliament. It is that problem, and that problem alone, which falls to be dealt with, as I understand, by this Committee to-night in considering these Estimates. The Minister of Transport said that the Ministry of Transport Act was the creation of this House. He twitted the Committee by saying that the First Reading was passed without a Division and that the Second Reading was passed without a Division, and that the subsequent stages were carried by large majorities and, as an hon. Friend reminds me, of a docile Coalition. I agree that is so.
I, for one, was a consistent opponent of this Measure until it reached the Statute Book, and when it did I certainly had every desire to do everything in my power to make it succeed. I have waited until to-day and listened faithfully, fairly and squarely for the proofs from the Treasury Bench in order that I might say at last this Ministry has suceeded. No such proof has been forthcoming. This Measure, it is true, was passed by the House, and a faithful Coalition acting in full faith on the word of the Minister. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) was quite right when he cited certain of
the promises then made. We relied on those promises, and what were they? We were to have a Ministry established which was to bring about co-ordination. Thank God that word has been given up lately in this House at any rate. As well as coordination we were to have improved facilities in connection with the railways, and for what? For housing and agriculture. Those were the great big things which lured the House on to tolerate this gigantic organisation. What has the right hon. Gentleman said to the Committee? Has he defended one of those things or has he given the least hope that one of those things will be accomplished? Not one! What has he done? He has told us that it has become a great Accountancy Department in order to check war expenditure in connection with the railways, which could very well have been done by a Department in any one of the great Ministries of the Government.
I submit that he has failed entirely to prove to this House that this expenditure is justified on this broad base. He has not justified one of the promises that were put before this House last year. He has done nothing more than to deal with 5s. on a bottle of champagne and to say that we required all this huge expenditure in order to check up the allocation of expenses between the ordinary maintenance charge and the capital charges of the railways. Is that or is that not sufficient to justify this expenditure? I think I have said sufficient to direct the attention of the Committee to the main principles involved in this Estimate, and I now say plainly, that in my judgment this Estimate has not been justified and cannot be justified unless there is something more to be said about it, and if the hon. Member who has moved a reduction of the Vote goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote with him.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I came down to the Committee this afternoon, like the hon. Member who has just spoken, wondering whether I should vote for the Vote or against it, and I am bound to say that, taking all the arguments so far as I have heard them this afternoon, I have seldom heard a case that has been so unconvincingly made out for a vast expenditure like this as that which has been made out this afternoon. I would just like to refer briefly to the case of the agreement with the Board of Trade about the Under-
ground. I do not think the Minister was in the least degree fair to the two hon. Members who preceded him. The last thing, as I understood, that they wished was to make any attack whatsoever on Lord Ashfield, and no defence from the right hon. Gentleman was needed with regard to Lord Ashfield at all. On the contrary, what it seemed to me they were anxious to bring out was the real nature of the agreement, the discovery of which, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman, was sufficient to justify the whole existence of his Department. I will only just ask one question or two, as a layman and not as a railway man, with regard to that agreement. Were those Tubes taken over or were they not? Because if they were taken over, did not the taking over give the Government afterwards the power to require that the service they wanted, within physical possibility, should be kept up, and if the Government had that power, why all this stress on the absence of a clause in the agreement which by the nature of the circumstances was not necessary, however it might be under ordinary conditions? Or, again, this agreement has been adduced by the right hon Gentleman as being a reason why the Department is needed as contrasted with the poor old derelict Board of Trade, and then, in the course of his remarks, as I understood them, he said that what happened was not humanly to be foreseen. It seemed to me that by those very words he exonerated the Board of Trade and Mr. Runciman from the blame which he wished to put upon them, and which was the reason for the existence of this Department and the virtue of the action he has taken.
Lastly, whatever has happened, is it not true that, so to speak, there was a quid pro quo on the giving up of this agreement now by the Underground? Was there a quid pro quo or was there not? If so, how was there a net gain to the country of £1,000,000, or whatever it was, as we understood from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks? We would like to have the facts quite clearly brought out, as I have no doubt they will be brought out in time. The impression left upon my mind as an outsider is that there was not this net gain of £1,000,000 a year to the country, as we were inclined to believe at an earlier stage, and that consequently
if it is action like this which, on the right hon. Gentleman's own claim, is to justify the existence of his Department, then I imagine that no clearer condemnation of it could have been uttered by anyone. There are one or two other points which, it seems to me, are really very material to the judging of this question. What were the other agreements, the dealing with which constitutes again a reason why this Department should be kept in existence? By what ignorant men were these agreements made? Were they by Lord Ashfield, when he was President of the Board of Trade, or were they by his successor at the Board of Trade? I am sure everyone in the Committee would be anxious to know that. What we need in this country at this state of the finances, before indulging in this further expenditure, is the detailed facts with regard to all these matters, to show whether such expenditure as this can possibly be justified.
Far too much, in my opinion, has been made of that incident about myrmidons being sent round by the Department to test the price of champagne. Too much, indeed, was made of it by the Minister himself. Is that really the way in which the whole finance of the country is to be dealt with? If you are going to strike a balance between the great railway companies and the Government, is it to be done by testing the prices of bottles of champagne? I do not want to labour the point, but the very fact that this sort of point was made of so much substance by the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to point out a fallacy in his whole method of dealing with the matter. If one big business company was going to deal with another big business company, that is not the way it would set to work, and if a good balance is to be struck, I think it could be done infinitely better by other methods. Lastly on which leg are the Government really standing in this matter? Are they going to justify the existence of these officials by the fact that it is temporary work of great importance upon which they are employed, in order, finally, to settle up between the railway companies and the Government? That was the defence given by the Leader of the House. Is that to be the defence, or is the defence to be that this is a great permanent scheme, without which the "old world" cannot be "shored-up" or the new world
brought in? Which is it to be? You cannot justify it on both grounds. If it is going to be temporary, let us have the assurance that once this temporary work is done, this whole network of megalomania shall then be swept away. If it is not temporary, then the sooner we arrive at a right understanding of what is required the better.
I would venture to suggest that so much interest attaches to this matter, both in itself and from the point of view of principle, that it would be well worth having this Debate continued on another day, when Members of the Committee may be able to read with care the speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I do not for an instant wish to be impolite to the right hon. Gentleman, but two hours were taken up, to start with, by his exposition of facts, another twenty minutes or so on a point of order, the best part of half an hour by the Leader of the House—and I daresay we are going to have a reply from the Government this evening—and an hour or more was taken up by Private Business in the middle. Clearly, on a matter of this kind, it would be well if it could be carried over, and the full sense of the Committee taken upon it. One point has not been sufficiently emphasised. I know of a case in which a man claimed £15,000 from an insurance company on the ground that in a fire at his house his wife's jewels had perished in the flames. The company quite naturally sent a representative to make inquiries. The man said, "I do not want so much bother as all this. Take your bill and write £7,500."What was the natural result?

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I should think the man found himself in prison.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, the man in the end was put in prison. But the first and natural result was that the company, instead of taking less care, took more care. Here we have a somewhat analogous case. We have a large sum of money for salaries and there arises a cry for economy. There is a cry for economy in the public Press, which is scorned by many Ministers for what it does, and, as a result, the Bill for salaries is at once reduced by one-fifth. That reduction is not a reason for passing the Estimates as they stand, but for looking
into them with more care than previously appeared to be necessary. I really hope that in this case the Government will listen to what I think is the preponderating opinion of the Committee. It is no good saying, with any wish to convince us, that the whole policy of the Ministry of Ways and Communications is the settled policy of the House. Anyone here who knows the circumstances, what is known anywhere else, under which that Bill was brought in, under which it was discussed, and under which it was finally passed, would be a rash man if he said that it represented the settled conviction of this House. We have this wave of economy, and we have the Prime Minister writing a second letter saying that economy must be carried out in the Departments. I have no doubt we shall soon have Ministers saying:" Look at the magnificent zeal of the Prime Minister for economy. Look at him writing to all the Departments urging economy. By his negligence he may have let the horse out of the stable, but look how quickly he is running after it now that it is out." The whole course of the Debate this afternoon proves that the case for this vast expenditure has not been made out. It ought to be much more fully established if the country is really to believe that this Committee is in earnest about economy, and I sincerely trust that either the Government will give way about this matter, or that the Debate will be carried over in order that the facts may be fully ascertained before we come to a decision.

Major BARNES: I think the Committee feel that the Government should accede to the wish which has been expressed by the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down, and that we should have another day for this Debate. If, as I gather, the Government are disposed to agree, and to give us another day, it would satisfy, not only the Committee, but also the country. An entirely new situation has arisen out of the Debate. We have learnt to-day for the first time that the Ministry of Transport is engaged upon a work which was never mentioned when the Ministry of Transport Bill was brought in. We understand that the main cause of the great expenditure to which the country is being put is the fact that the Ministry of Transport has to deal with a situation that arises out of agreements made in the
early part of the War. Nothing was said of that when the Bill was brought in. Now we are told that this situation has arisen, that a great staff is required, and great expenditure necessitated because of these agreements. The country will want to know about these agreements. Who made them? Upon whom does that responsibility lie? We ought to have the truth, no matter on what part of the House it falls. If the Government in 1915 were responsible for these agreements, let us know it without any consideration as to what party suffers from the revelation of the truth. I think the right hon. Gentleman must regret the line he took in defending his Estimates this afternoon. He never intended—I am quite sure—that any reflection should fall upon the honour or probity of Lord Ashfield. Nothing has been said from this side of the House which reflects on Lord Ashfield's honour or probity. As was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, Lord Ashfield has a perfect answer, if one be needed. The test is as to whether any consideration was given for the transfer in the agreement. The right hon. Gentleman said if there was no consideration no answer was required. We have learnt from the right hon. Gentleman that was a consideration—that this agreement is to be cancelled at the date when the increased charges have been agreed to in the Bill now before the House of Lords. Then it is asked whether there is any real gain to the Government out of the transaction? The situation seems to be a gain to the general taxpayer, but that the burden will be on the users of the trains in London.
Let me put this—if it be true—and I believe it is—that the agreements under which the right hon. Gentleman is acting now were made in 1915, when Mr. Walter Runciman was at the Board of Trade. The imputation made is that these agreements were disadvantageous because at that time you had a President who was not versed in railway matters. Let us accept that. But it is fair to remember that these agreements have been in operation for four or five years, and that within a year or two of their being made, there was at the Board of Trade a man who was versed in railway matters. He had no opportunity of revising these agreements. These agreements were made in the early days of the War, when Ministers had the
War to think of as well as agreements. Might the Minister then not believe and expect when he was making agreements with men versed in railway matters that they were agreements in the public interest?
The Minister in charge of the Vote was so keen to make a point against Mr. Runciman that he overlooked the other side of the case, and if any reflection has been made upon Lord Ashfield it is due to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman presented his case. He stated that at that time neither of these gentlemen could see what the result of the agreement would be and that I believe is the position. I would like to know at what moment did it become apparent that the agreement was not in the public interest? That is a point which remains to be cleared up. According to the Minister of Transport the moment it became apparent was when he heard by chance that this agreement had been made, and he brought this forward as an instance of the value of the Ministry and a reason why these estimates should be passed. The moment he realised that this agreement was not in the public interest was when he heard of this agreement by chance.
One advantage of having this Debate is that we shall hear more about this question. We shall hear Mr. Runciman's story and we shall heard Lord Ashfield's story. Was it during the period Mr. Runciman or Lord Ashfield was in office that it appeared that this agreement was to the public disadvantage? There are a great many other things to be said on this matter, but the real interest of this Debate and its importance is that it will concentrate the interest of the country upon the question of the whole relationship between the Government and the railways. When the country begins to look into that question and realises the nature of the agreement, they will see the favoured position in which the railways have been placed in every respect.
There is to be an inquiry into the indemnity question in regard to the requisition of property during the War, and a great deal of attention has been directed to that question. Many people feel that they have not had fair play and that the decisions of the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission have not been satisfactory, and that people have not received proper terms. The railway com-
panies have not been subjected to the decisions of this Commission, before which merchants have appeared who have had their goods requisitioned and they have only been paid the value at the time they were requisitioned, quite irrespective of the cost of replacing them. The railway companies have received entirely different treatment. Nothing but good can come of postponing this discussion. This Debate does not present a very pretty picture to the country in which one Minister is attacking his predecessor, and in which the head of a great Department proceeds to discredit another Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am speaking now as a man who has been through the Civil Service. I want to take this opportunity of protesting against the way in which the Civil Service is being treated by the Government of to-day. It is not the way to ensure the best work from it.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I am sure this Motion will meet with the unanimous assent of the Committee, as there is a general consensus of opinion that this matter is worth another day's Debate. Thanks to the assistance rendered by the Opposition, who have a controlling voice in this matter, we have been able to arrange that the Debate shall be continued this day week.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On that Motion—

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order. As this Motion has been proposed from the Treasury Bench under the impression that the Committee unanimously accepts it, is it in order for the hon. Member to continue the Debate? Had that been in order I should have risen myself, and I do ask we shall all have a fair start if it is to be continued.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull will certainly not be allowed to continue the Debate on the subject recently before the Committee, and he must confine his remarks strictly to the Motion to report Progress, which is quite a different matter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: That is the question on which I propose to make a few remarks, and if hon. Members will only bear with me I can quickly make my point. I wish to draw attention to the position in which we find ourselves in having to spend another day on this subject. It shows an extraordinarily bad arrangement of business, and I want to enter my protest against the proposal to give another day when there are so many much more important subjects requiring discussion. Yesterday we only gave four hours to the discussion of an expenditure of something well over £40,000,000; yet the whole of to-day have been devoted to debating the affairs of one Department, which I consider is unnecessary.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not at all relevant to the question before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Am I in order in protesting against reporting Progress to-day? I want more time on another Vote.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in order in discussing this question when he has not been here during the progress of the Debate?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I can give no other reply than I have already given.

Mr. PALMER: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member for the Soviet Division of Hull is entitled to waste the time of this Committee?

Colonel GRETTON: Before the Question be put, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote whether the White Paper which he promised in the course of to-day's Debate will be published before next Thursday?

Sir E. GEDDES: I certainly hope to get it out by then.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit a gain To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. GALLAGHER).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

11.0 P.M.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: At Question Time to-day I gave notice to the Minister of Pensions that I should raise, on the Motion for Adjournment tonight, the case of a soldier's widow who is on the verge of destitution and has been refused any subsistence allowance by the Ministry of Pensions. I am very sorry to have to raise this question, because, during the whole of the election campaign of 1918, in reply to every pensions question that was addressed to me, I begged of people concerned not to make the question of pensions for our soldiers and sailors a political question. I deprecated it in every way. I would not lend myself to bidding for votes or support on that head. But I am afraid I cannot help raising this question to-night. I have done everything I possibly could to induce the Ministry of Pensions to take an intelligent view of this matter. For more than six months I have been badgering the Ministry of Pensions to get some consideration for this poor woman, and I have laid in wait for every Pensions Minister and his private secretary that has come along, and, in the first instance, I have received sympathetic consideration from everyone.
On the outbreak of the War there was a man called Brighty, who was a very decent man, a locomotive fireman, and he had a wife and two little children and his wife's own brother dependent upon him. He joined up in 1914, I am told, and after a period of training in England was sent abroad, served five months at the front, and then was killed. His widow received a pension on account of the death of her husband and a subsistence allowance for her dependent children. About two years afterwards she married a soldier called Gallagher. He had been badly knocked about in the War and shot in the abdomen, and a few months after her marriage was discharged from the Army as being unfit for further military service. She was married on 22nd September, 1917. Gallagher was injured in April, 1917, and died, according to my information, in May, 1919, and according to the answer to my question to-day
on 14th August, 1919. It is rather important because between May and October Mrs. Gallagher was drawing a satisfactory subsistence allowance from the local Ministry of Pensions, and in October that allowance was stopped. Gallagher was granted a pension of 11s. 3d. per week. This included an allowance for Mrs. Gallagher's child by her first husband, and when the child died the pension was reduced to 8s. 3d. per week. Gallagher died, and Mrs. Gallagher went to the Pensions Ministry and applied for a pension on account of the death of her second husband, and she was told eventually that no claim could be admitted because the wound from which he died was prior to his marriage with her. I believe the Pensions Ministry is up against that difficulty, but what becomes of the claim of the widow of Brighty? Cannot that woman revert to her original pension? If she had been the widow of an officer—officers' widows have very few privileges, and I do not want to cast any aspersion upon their privileges—she could have reverted to her former husband's pension, but being the widow of a private she is debarred from doing so because of the consideration which was paid to her on her second marriage, namely, a year's pension. This woman to-day is the widow of two soldiers. She has been twice widowed during the War, and she is now dependent on charity. She has been drawing charity from the Middlesbrough Guild of Help, and has received something over £60 pending a settlement of this case. That cannot go on, and the only alternative is for her to go to the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians for relief. There is not a Member of this House who did any recruiting work in August, 1914, but did not tell the people they were addressing, with the full sanction and assent of the Government, that if the men enlisted and they were killed their dependants would be provided for by the State. That was a definite promise made to them. Brighty lies in a soldier's grave in France. He was given a definite promise when he enlisted, and on his behalf and on behalf of my constituents I request and I require the Ministry of Pensions to look after his widow.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I can easily see that under the Royal Warrant, as it stands at present, there may not be
power to give a pension to this woman in respect of her first husband, but I can see no reason why the Royal Warrant should not be altered. It undoubtedly operates very harshly in cases of this kind. In the cases of dependants, not of widows who had not previously been dependent upon a soldier, they are not granted a pension if they have adequate means of support, but if at some future time they are deprived of these adequate means of support, the pension is accorded to them. I think it is quite reasonable, as the Warrant lays down, that if the widow marries again she forfeits the pension so long as she is in a position in which she is dependent on someone else and has full maintenance, but if at some future time her second husband dies, and she is incapable of working herself, and is deprived of all means of support, she is in the same position as another dependant, and is entitled to the same consideration. There is no doubt that the position of destitution in which this woman is placed is not in the first place on account of her second husband, but on account of the death of her first husband, who was killed in the War. He might have been living yet to support his wife but for his voluntary service in the War. I do not think that the moral obligation of the State is completely brought to an end by the remarriage of the woman; the moral obligation arises again if she gets into a position of destitution. I hope the Government will consider the Amendment of the Warrant in this respect.

Mr. HOGGE: There is one obvious way of settling this difficulty, which reveals an enormous number of anomalies that happen under the Pensions Warrant. If the widow of an ordinary soldier remarries she gets a yearly gratuity, but does not revert to pension; if the widow of an officer remarries she gets no gratuity, but reverts to pension. Why in the name of common sense cannot the Pensions Warrant be altered so that in both cases they will get the marriage gratuity which is one year's pension, and if the husband dies revert to the pension? That is obvious common sense, and I cannot understand why it is not done.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am very much obliged to the
hon. Member who has brought this forward, and to the other two hon. Members who have spoken. I do not think that any of them will expect me to give a definite promise to alter the warrant on the strength of this short discussion, but there is matter in what they say, particularly in what the last hon. Member said in pointing out the difficulties, almost the danger of treating officers and men differently. It is by no means the case that the officers always get the best of it. When the widow of a private soldier marries again she gets a gratuity, and they all get the gratuity, so that every case is covered. In the case of officers nothing more is done for the widow on remarriage, except in the event of her again becoming a widow. So I hope that the House and the country will not go away with the impression that there is anything which is unfair to the men as compared with the officers. It is quite arguable that it is the other way. It is a somewhat difficult calculation to compare the grant in every case of a gratuity for a year with the distant possibility of the renewal of the pension after a considerable period. I will consider the arguments put forward, but, with regard to this particular case, I cannot say that the hon. Member opposite has chosen a very good case to put forward, because I think, in justice to the Ministry and to the House, he ought to have mentioned, as I did in my reply, that this particular widow is at this very moment appealing for a pension in respect of her second husband. Surely, he does not expect us to grant a pension in respect of the first husband, when the widow is, at this, moment, appealing in respect of the second husband. That pension will depend on two things—whether the injury or illness occurred after marriage and not before it, and also on the verdict of the appeal tribunal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this forward, because the Ministry in justice to itself ought to have the opportunity of pointing out that the House of Commons decided that those cases of attributility and other cognate questions were not matters to leave simply to the Ministry of Pensions, but that there should be entirely independent tribunals appointed by the Lord Chancellor, which could over-rule the Ministry of Pensions and everybody. Therefore with regard to this particular widow, it is not fair to blame the Ministry of
Pensions for the present position. Her case is at present sub-judice, and is going before the Appeal Tribunal.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I think that a mistake has arisen between the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer to my question to-day and the letter which I have in my hand which says that at the present moment Mrs. Gallagher's appeal is not admissible at all, and therefore the decision may be taken as final and against her.

Major TRYON: I know that letter. That is the case with regard to the wound, but the man did not die of the wound, and if the illness occurred after the marriage and was due to active service after the marriage she will get the pension. It is on that ground that the case is going forward. So far from our being unsympathetic, we have written urging, with a view to getting the matter settled, that it shall be taken at the earliest possible moment by the Appeal Tribunal. It is not fair to blame the Ministry of Pensions for a matter which the House of Commons has taken out of its jurisdiction.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister of Pensions give instructions that this woman is to receive a subsistence allowance until her case is finally settled, so that she need not go to the Guardians for relief?

Major TRYON: I will see what my powers are; I think that can be done.

Captain LOSEBY: I think the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has done a great service in calling attention to another of these ridiculous anomalies. I want to make a point that I have endeavoured to make before in this House. I wish it did not fall to have Members eternally to come forward and discover for the benefit of the Minister of Pensions anomalies that he ought to have discovered for himself. There are anomalies innumerable in this pensions business, and the soldiers have undoubtedly suffered from the fact that, although the Ministry of Pensions have redressed these anomalies when brought forward, nevertheless the Minister does wait and has waited over and over again, until they were actually forced upon his attention. The hon. Gentleman has made one other point in regard to which I have always
felt very keenly. He states that when the House of Commons decided that the pensioner was to have a right of appeal to a Board independent of the Ministry, they then decided to overrule the Minister of Pensions. That is an attitude which was not adopted by this House but by the Ministry, in spite of many emphatic protests by many hon. Members of this House. It is true that the man has a right of appeal on his pension and that when he gets that pension awarded to him he has a statutory right; but even Appeal Boards make great and grievous mistakes, and the prerogative of the Minister still remains. It is perfectly true that he refuses to exercise that prerogative. He says, No; you appointed these Boards and you must stand by them." The House never gave an instruction to that extent. I have always felt very bitterly that this Minister, whom we have put up as the curator of the disabled man, whose function is to look after him and his grievances, should say, "No. I acknowledge this may be wrong, but you have decided and it is taken out of my hand." Nothing of the kind. This House has never decided that.

Major TRYON: It is an Act of Parliament.

Captain LOSEBY: It is an Act of Parliament that a man has a right to appeal on a pension. But surely I am not wrong in saying that the prerogative of the Minister still remains, and if the Board decides that the pension shall be 20s. and the Minister in his wisdom says that is wrong, and he has a prerogative, and that the pension shall be 25s., he is able to do so. That is why he is there. The hon. Gentleman feels strongly on this point, that rights have been taken away from him. I hope he will look into the matter again. I have great confidence in the hon. Gentleman and in the Minister of Pensions, and if they will exercise that right, as the House wishes them to do, it will be conferring a great benefit on the disabled man.

Captain BOWYER: May I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, not as a Member of Parliament, but as a man who only a short time ago was a company commander and went out with three different detachments, and served with these men, and now represents them in Parliament? My appeal is for a little
bit of a human touch in these matters. In cases like that which has been brought forward there should at least be an allowance given in order to enable people to carry on until a decision is arrived at. That would be the human touch. If cases which I bring forward personally to the notice of the Minister are delayed, or if they fail, what is to happen to the ordinary case which does not come into and through the hands of a Member of Parliament to the Ministry? I am sure that what I have said will receive sympathetic attention. I attended quite recently a regional meeting of the new area, and I have done everything that I could to make myself aware of the rules and regulations. I feel more strongly than I can find words to express, not as a Member of Parliament, but as a man, for these men, with whom, until recently, for months I served in France.

Dr. MURRAY: I would like to refer to the question of the attributability of the cause of death. This is a kind of case which gives rise to very great difficulty with Pensions Boards. I still think justice is not being done in the matter. Many lay people, and I as a medical man, do not understand why one man's disease should be regarded as attributable and another man's disease as not attributable. That, I believe, is a question that has got to be reviewed in fairness to all concerned. These are questions that give rise to very great apparent injustice and cause a great deal of feeling of unfairness in the community, and I do not believe, if the Ministry came to the conclusion that any cause of death that arose during service was regarded as attributable, it would add very much to the financial burden on the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned at Twenty - five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.